Filed: Mar. 07, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2252 SANDRA ROBINSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. NIELSEN TV RATINGS, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:10-cv-00009-JRS) Submitted: February 28, 2012 Decided: March 7, 2012 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sandra Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2252 SANDRA ROBINSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. NIELSEN TV RATINGS, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:10-cv-00009-JRS) Submitted: February 28, 2012 Decided: March 7, 2012 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sandra Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. J..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2252
SANDRA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
NIELSEN TV RATINGS,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:10-cv-00009-JRS)
Submitted: February 28, 2012 Decided: March 7, 2012
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sandra Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. John M. Barr, Crystal L.
Norrick, JACKSON LEWIS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sandra Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s
November 8, 2011 order, denying her discovery motions. 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 Robinson 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