Filed: Jan. 16, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2291 SHEILA M. UNDERWOOD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARVIN T. RUNYON, JR., Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-95-776-23BD-3) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 16, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit J
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2291 SHEILA M. UNDERWOOD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARVIN T. RUNYON, JR., Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-95-776-23BD-3) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 16, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Ju..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2291
SHEILA M. UNDERWOOD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MARVIN T. RUNYON, JR., Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CA-95-776-23BD-3)
Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 16, 1997
Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sheila M. Underwood, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Sheila M. Underwood appeals the district court's order grant-
ing Runyon's motion for partial summary judgment. We dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appeal-
able. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,
28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. 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 and deny Appellant's
motion to compel. 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