Hinton v. Lanham Ford Motor Co

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-2074

DESHANTA HINTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LANHAM FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

JOHN DOE, JR., General Manager, Lanham Ford Motor Company; PAUL TIMKO, Special Agent for the FBI; KAREN NESTER, Special Agent for the FBI; UNKNOWN FBI AGENTS; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Federal Bureau of Investigation,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:05-cv-02425-AW)

Submitted: August 13, 2007 Decided: August 21, 2007

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. DeShanta Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. John Paul Lynch, Charles Henry Henderson, MCNAMEE, HOSEA, JERNIGAN, KIM, GREENAN & WALKER, PA, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

DeShanta Hinton seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing certain defendants in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000)

suit. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). In this case,

claims remain pending in the district court against several other

defendants. The order Hinton seeks to appeal is neither a final

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See

Baird v. Palmer, 114 F.3d 39, 42 (4th Cir.1997). Accordingly, we

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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 the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 3 -