Perry-Bey v. City of Norfolk

333 F. App'x 733
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 14, 2009·No. No. 09-1289·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christina D. Perry-Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her complaint without prejudice. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Perry-Bey seeks to [734]*734appeal is neither a final order nor an ap-pealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Perry-Bey v. City of Norfolk, 333 F. App'x 733 (4th Cir. 2009).

333 F. App'x 733 (Perry-Bey v. City of Norfolk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Perry-Bey v. City of Norfolk, Va.
679 F. Supp. 2d 655 (E.D. Virginia, 2010)