Hinton v. Lanham Ford Motor Co

Filing 920070821

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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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., Motor Company; the FBI; KAREN FBI; UNKNOWN DEPARTMENT OF Investigation, General Manager, Lanham Ford PAUL TIMKO, Special Agent for NESTER, Special Agent for the FBI AGENTS; UNITED STATES JUSTICE, Federal Bureau of 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 See

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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. facts and legal before We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the

contentions the court

materials

would

decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 3 -