CETINA v. MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, 13-1864. (2013)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20130926156
Visitors: 3
Filed: Sep. 26, 2013
Latest Update: Sep. 26, 2013
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Tanya Lynn Cetina seeks to appeal the district court's orders adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss her claims against Defendants Dave Mauger and Michelin North America, Incorporated. 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
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Tanya Lynn Cetina seeks to appeal the district court's orders adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss her claims against Defendants Dave Mauger and Michelin North America, Incorporated. 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 ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Tanya Lynn Cetina seeks to appeal the district court's orders adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss her claims against Defendants Dave Mauger and Michelin North America, Incorporated. 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). Because Cetina's claims against several other Defendants remain, the orders Cetina seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. 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.
Source: Leagle
