Filed: Feb. 13, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1971 ANTHONY A. BROTHERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FAMILY DOLLAR, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:11-cv-00355-RBS-DEM) Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony A.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1971 ANTHONY A. BROTHERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FAMILY DOLLAR, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:11-cv-00355-RBS-DEM) Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony A. B..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1971
ANTHONY A. BROTHERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FAMILY DOLLAR, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:11-cv-00355-RBS-DEM)
Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony A. Brothers, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony A. Brothers seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing Brothers’ action without prejudice for
lack of jurisdiction. This court may exercise jurisdiction only
over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Brothers seeks to appeal
is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Brothers’ motion for
appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
2