Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lourdes Iglesias v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 12-1186 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-1186 Visitors: 18
Filed: Jun. 05, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1186 LOURDES IGLESIAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:11-cv-00341-MSD-FBS) Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 5, 2012 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lourdes Iglesias, Appellant Pro Se. U
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 12-1186


LOURDES IGLESIAS,

                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          v.

WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED,

                Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.    Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:11-cv-00341-MSD-FBS)


Submitted:   May 31, 2012                    Decided:   June 5, 2012


Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Lourdes Iglesias, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           Lourdes Iglesias seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing, without prejudice, her civil action against

Wal-Mart      Stores,        Inc.,         and     denying      her     motion      for

reconsideration.       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 orders Iglesias seeks to appeal are neither

final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.

Accordingly,    we    deny     leave       to    proceed   in   forma   pauperis    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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer