Linda Huggins v. NC Dept. of Administration

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [998739512-2] Originating case number: 5:10-cv-00414-FL. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998778999]. Mailed to: Lisa Huggins. [11-1977]

Appeal: 11-1977

Document: 12

Date Filed: 02/02/2012

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1977

LINDA K. HUGGINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NC
DEPARTMENT
COMMISSION,

OF

ADMINISTRATION,

NC

HUMAN

RELATIONS

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:10-cv-00414-FL)

Submitted:

January 31, 2012

Decided:

February 2, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Linda K. Huggins, Appellant Pro Se.
Mary Ann Stone, Assistant
Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-1977

Document: 12

Date Filed: 02/02/2012

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Linda K. Huggins seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing only one claim in her employment discrimination
action.

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, 54546 (1949).

The order Huggins seeks to appeal is neither a final

order

an

nor

appealable

interlocutory

or

collateral

order.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Also pending before this court is Huggins’ petition
for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district
court to enter a final order in the underlying action pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

We conclude that

Huggins is not entitled to mandamus relief.

See In re First

Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).
We therefore deny the petition for a writ of mandamus
and dismiss the appeal.

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