Filed: Jan. 23, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2535 CHRISTINE SANDRA MCLENDON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF MARYLAND; LABOR INDUSTRY; DENIS PELLITIER; MANPOWER, INC., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-1727-JFM) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpubl
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2535 CHRISTINE SANDRA MCLENDON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF MARYLAND; LABOR INDUSTRY; DENIS PELLITIER; MANPOWER, INC., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-1727-JFM) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpubli..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2535
CHRISTINE SANDRA MCLENDON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF MARYLAND; LABOR INDUSTRY; DENIS
PELLITIER; MANPOWER, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CA-95-1727-JFM)
Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1996
Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christine Sandra McLendon, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's order (1) amending her
Complaint to add two Defendants and allowing her twenty days to
complete the necessary form in order to effect service on one of
those Defendants, and (2) denying her motion for reconsideration.
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 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. 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