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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 11-1977 Document: 12 Date Filed: 02/02/2012 Page: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1977 LINDA K. HUGGINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NC DEPARTMENT COMMISSION, OF ADMINISTRATION, NC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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?