Doreen Shing v. Center Medicare Services

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 24, 2024
• Docket: 24-1402
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1402 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/24/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1402

DOREEN SHING,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CENTER MEDICARE SERVICES; MD DEPT. OF HEALTH; MD DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ADM.; THE ARC OF CHESAPEAKE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Brendan A. Hurson, District Judge. (1:23-cv-03415-BAH)

Submitted: October 22, 2024 Decided: October 24, 2024

Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Doreen Shing, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Jackman Wilson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; Christopher A. Gozdor, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Stacey Torres, Donald James Walsh, RKW LAW GROUP, Owings Mills, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1402 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/24/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Doreen Shing seeks to appeal the district court’s order ruling on multiple motions,

including Defendants’ motions to dismiss Shing’s complaint alleging constitutional and

statutory violations relating to her receipt of benefits. The district court dismissed Shing’s

complaint without prejudice and granted Shing leave to file a proposed amended complaint.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and

certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen

v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Shing seeks to

appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Britt

v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 796 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc). 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