Tessie Casey v. Plastic Omnium Auto Exterior L

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:11-cv-01432-HMH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999149666]. Mailed to: Tessie Theressa Casey. [13-1183]

Appeal: 13-1183

Doc: 12

Filed: 07/15/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1183

TESSIE THERESSA CASEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PLASTIC OMNIUM AUTO EXTERIOR LLC,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
KAREN BEASLEY; DAVID HUNTER; GREG LEWIS; RICK WALLACE,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:11-cv-01432-HMH)

Submitted:

June 18, 2013

Decided:

July 15, 2013

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tessie Theressa Casey, Appellant Pro Se. John Timothy Merrell,
Madison Baker Wyche, III, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, PC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1183

Doc: 12

Filed: 07/15/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Tessie
court’s

order

Theressa

accepting

Casey
the

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation

of

the

the

district

magistrate

judge and granting summary judgment in favor of Plastic Omnium
Auto

Exterior

discrimination

LLC

(“Plastic

claims.

Omnium”)

This

court

on

may

Casey’s

exercise

employment
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, 545-46 (1949).
neither

a

final

collateral order.

order

The order Casey seeks to appeal is

nor

an

appealable

interlocutory

or

Specifically, the district court’s order did

not resolve all claims between the parties; Plastic Omnium’s
counterclaims are still pending in the district court.

Further,

the district court did not expressly certify its order as final
pursuant to Rule 54(b).

See MCI Constructors, LLC v. City of

Greensboro, 610 F.3d 849, 855 (4th Cir. 2010) (describing twopart

showing

required

for

Rule

54(b)

certification).

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

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
2