Kendall Smith v. Verizon Washington, DC, Incorp

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:11-cv-01301-PJM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998823288]. Mailed to: Kendall Smith. [11-2392]

Appeal: 11-2392

Document: 16

Date Filed: 04/02/2012

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2392

KENDALL R. SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
VERIZON WASHINGTON, DC, INCORPORATED; VERIZON MID-ATLANTIC,
INCORPORATED; VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED; REED
SMITH LLP,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:11-cv-01301-PJM)

Submitted:

March 29, 2012

Decided:

April 2, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kendall R. Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Helenanne Connolly, REED
SMITH, LLP, Falls Church, Virginia; Betty S. W. Graumlich, REED
SMITH, LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Angela Avis Holland, REED SMITH,
LLP, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-2392

Document: 16

Date Filed: 04/02/2012

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Kendall
action

against

R.

Smith

Verizon

filed

an

Washington,

employment

DC,

discrimination

Incorporated

(“Verizon

DC”), and other defendants.

He now seeks to appeal the district

court’s

all

order

dismissing

dismissing

three

dismissing

the

parties

except

claims

against

Verizon

DC

remaining

claims

against

Verizon

Verizon

with

DC;

prejudice;
DC

without

prejudice; and granting Smith leave to file an amended complaint
as

to

these

remaining

complaint below.

claims.

Smith

has

filed

an

amended

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).
order

nor

The order Smith seeks to appeal is neither a final
an

appealable

interlocutory

or

collateral

order.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2