Filed: Dec. 22, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2254 DEBRA MAYES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. RENEE TIPPENS, Defendant – Appellee, and GRAPHIC PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:10-cv-00410-RJC-DSC) Submitted: December 9, 2010 Decided: December 22, 2010 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublish
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2254 DEBRA MAYES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. RENEE TIPPENS, Defendant – Appellee, and GRAPHIC PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:10-cv-00410-RJC-DSC) Submitted: December 9, 2010 Decided: December 22, 2010 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublishe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2254
DEBRA MAYES,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
RENEE TIPPENS,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
GRAPHIC PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:10-cv-00410-RJC-DSC)
Submitted: December 9, 2010 Decided: December 22, 2010
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Debra Mayes, Appellant Pro Se. Mason Gardner Alexander, Jr.,
FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Debra Mayes seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying reconsideration of its order adopting the recommendation
of the magistrate judge and granting Defendant Renee Tippens’s
motion to dismiss the claims against Tippens. 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 Mayes
seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we 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