Pierre Augustin v. Sectek, Incorporated

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-00490-CMH-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998786656]. Mailed to: Pierre R. Augustin. [11-1980]

Appeal: 11-1980

Document: 13

Date Filed: 02/13/2012

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1980

PIERRE RICHARD AUGUSTIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SECTEK, INCORPORATED; SECTEK PROTECTIVE SERVICES; WILFRED D.
BLOOD;
MICHELLE
FOWLER;
FREDERICK
SPRINGFIELD;
NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF SPECIAL POLICE AND SECURITY OFFICERS, (NASPSO);
CALEB BURRISS; JOHN DOE, Individuals yet to be determined, if
any, also involved in the making of materially false statement
and fraud as involved in this case; JANE DOE, Individuals yet to
be determined, if any, also involved in the making of materially
false statement and fraud as involved in this case,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:11-cv-00490-CMH-IDD)

Submitted:

February 9, 2012

Decided:

February 13, 2012

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Pierre Richard Augustin, Appellant Pro Se. Steven William Ray,
ISLER, DARE, RAY, RADCLIFFE & CONNOLLY, PC, Vienna, Virginia,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-1980

Document: 13

Date Filed: 02/13/2012

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Pierre

Richard

Augustin

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order dismissing his claims against some but not all of
the

defendants

named

in

his

suit.

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.,

Augustin

337

seeks

U.S.
to

541,

appeal

545-46
is

(1949).

neither

a

final

appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

The

legal
before

order

order

that

nor

an

Accordingly, we
We dispense with
contentions
the

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2