Filed: Jan. 23, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-1306 EMILY L. FOSTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLESTON COUNTY SUBSTANCE ABUSE COMMISSION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-94-127-2-18AJ) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emily L
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-1306 EMILY L. FOSTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLESTON COUNTY SUBSTANCE ABUSE COMMISSION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-94-127-2-18AJ) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emily L...
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-1306
EMILY L. FOSTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CHARLESTON COUNTY SUBSTANCE ABUSE COMMISSION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-94-127-2-18AJ)
Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1996
Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Emily L. Foster, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Peterson Groves, Sr.,
YOUNG, CLEMENT, RIVERS & TISDALE, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing
her 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1981, 1983 (West 1994) claims and referring her
Title VII claim to the magistrate judge for additional findings. We
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is
not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over
final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory
and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541
(1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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