Poursaied v. EEOC

Fourth Circuit

Poursaied v. EEOC

654 F. App'x 590

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided July 5, 2016·No. No. 15-2534·Published

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Shahnaz Poursaied seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her civil action with prejudice on the majority of her claims and without prejudice as to her potential claim under the Privacy Act. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Poursaied 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, 623-24, 629-30 (4th Cir. 2015). 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

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Shahnaz Poursaied seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her civil action with prejudice on the majority of her claims and without prejudice as to her potential claim under the Privacy Act. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Poursaied 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, 623-24, 629-30 (4th Cir. 2015). 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

Poursaied v. EEOC, 654 F. App'x 590 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

654 F. App'x 590 (Poursaied v. EEOC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related