Filed: Apr. 29, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2354 WANDA S. HUDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TELAMON CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-cv-00096-FL) Submitted: April 25, 2019 Decided: April 29, 2019 Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2354 WANDA S. HUDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TELAMON CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-cv-00096-FL) Submitted: April 25, 2019 Decided: April 29, 2019 Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam o..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-2354
WANDA S. HUDSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TELAMON CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-cv-00096-FL)
Submitted: April 25, 2019 Decided: April 29, 2019
Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wanda S. Hudson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wanda S. Hudson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her civil complaint without
prejudice. 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, 545-46 (1949). The
order Hudson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,
807 F.3d 619, 623-25 (4th
Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the
case to the district court with instructions to allow Hudson to amend her complaint. See
id. at 630. We deny Hudson’s motion to appoint counsel and 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 AND REMANDED
2