Tigress McDaniel v. Green Dot Corporation

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1100 Doc: 29 Filed: 05/24/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1100

TIGRESS MCDANIEL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GREEN DOT CORPORATION; GREEN DOT BANK; FINGERHUT; EXPERIAN DATA CORP.; EXPERIAN SERVICES CORP.; TRANSUNION DATA SOLUTIONS LLC; TRANSUNION LLC; WEBBANK,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

BLUESTEM SALES, INC.,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:23-cv-00406-D-RN)

Submitted: May 21, 2024 Decided: May 24, 2024

Before WYNN and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1100 Doc: 29 Filed: 05/24/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

Tigress Sydney Acute McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se. Kristen Peters Watson, BURR & FORMAN, LLP, Birmingham, Alabama; Jonathan Harold Todt, FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Caren D. Enloe, SMITH DEBNAM NARRON DRAKE SAINTSING & MYERS, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Camille R. Nicodemus, QUILLING SELANDER LOWNDS WINSLETT MOSER, Indianapolis, Indiana; Robert Cowan deRosset, IV, Christy Cochran Dunn, YOUNG MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1100 Doc: 29 Filed: 05/24/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Tigress McDaniel seeks to appeal the district court’s order (a) denying McDaniel’s

motions to amend her pro se complaint; (b) granting the motions to dismiss filed by all but

one of the named Defendants and dismissing those claims with prejudice; and (c) directing

McDaniel to show cause why the lone remaining Defendant, Bluestem Sales, Inc., should

not be dismissed from the action. 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 that McDaniel seeks to appeal is neither a final order, given that litigation on her

remaining claims is ongoing, nor is it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Accordingly, we dismiss this 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