Filed: Mar. 29, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1195 TONYA R. BLAKE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHILDREN’S ATTENTION HOME, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (0:11-cv-02825-MBS) Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013 Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tonya R. Blake, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1195 TONYA R. BLAKE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHILDREN’S ATTENTION HOME, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (0:11-cv-02825-MBS) Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013 Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tonya R. Blake, Appellant P..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1195
TONYA R. BLAKE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHILDREN’S ATTENTION HOME,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior
District Judge. (0:11-cv-02825-MBS)
Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013
Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tonya R. Blake, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Elizabeth Winters, JOAN
ELIZABETH WINTERS LAW OFFICES, Chester, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tonya R. Blake seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation to grant defendant’s motion for
summary judgment and to dismiss Blake’s employment
discrimination claim. 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 magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation 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 this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2