Filed: Aug. 22, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1382 SYLVIA JENKINS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. DOLLAR TREE CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00047-MSD-DEM) Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 22, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sylvia Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1382 SYLVIA JENKINS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. DOLLAR TREE CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00047-MSD-DEM) Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 22, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sylvia Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. U..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1382
SYLVIA JENKINS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DOLLAR TREE CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:16-cv-00047-MSD-DEM)
Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 22, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sylvia Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sylvia Jenkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing her civil complaint. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012),
and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949). Because the
deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied
through the filing of an amended complaint averring sufficient
facts in support of Jenkins’ claim, we conclude that the order
Jenkins seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Goode v. Cent.
Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,
807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015);
Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,
10 F.3d
1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).
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