Edith C. Peterson v. The City of Hickory Code Enfor

Filing 920090420

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1969 THE 16TH ST. DR., N.W. LAND HOLDERS AND/OR ECP TRUST, Plaintiff Appellant, EDITH C. PETERSON, Trustee Appellant, v. THE CITY OF HICKORY CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION IN N.C. 28601; CITY OF HICKORY; CITY OF HICKORY PLANNING BOARD; MICHAEL E. CASH, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:07-cv-00074-RLV-DLH) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 20, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edith C. Peterson, Appellant Pro Se. Bradley Philip Kline, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Edith C. Peterson seeks to appeal the district court's order affirming the magistrate judge's order that Peterson, a non-attorney, retain counsel to represent ECP Trust. may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, This court 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 (1949). Peterson seeks to appeal is neither a final The order nor an order appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny as moot Peterson's motion requesting that this court deny her counsel's motion to withdraw, deny Peterson's motion for time to locate new counsel, 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 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?