Kimberly Shareef v. Patrick Donahoe

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cv-00615-DCK. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999219854]. Mailed to: K. Shareef. [13-1806, 13-2078]

Appeal: 13-1806

Doc: 6

Filed: 10/17/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1806

KIMBERLY F. SHAREEF,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
PATRICK R. DONAHOE,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
DAVID MILLS; RODNEY K. DEFLUMERI,
Defendants.

No. 13-2078

KIMBERLY F. SHAREEF,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
PATRICK R. DONAHOE,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
DAVID MILLS; RODNEY K. DEFLUMERI,
Defendants.

Appeal: 13-1806

Doc: 6

Filed: 10/17/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
David C. Keesler,
Magistrate Judge. (3:11-cv-00615-DCK)

Submitted:

October 15, 2013

Decided:

October 17, 2013

Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kimberly F. Shareef, Appellant Pro Se. James Michael Sullivan,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-1806

Doc: 6

Filed: 10/17/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
In No. 13-1806, Kimberly F. Shareef seeks to appeal
the district court’s order denying her motion for appointment of
counsel.

In No. 13-2078, Shareef seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying her motion to compel and her motion for
sanctions.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and
collateral

orders,

54(b); Cohen

v.

545-46 (1949).

28

U.S.C.

Beneficial

§ 1292

Indus.

(2006);

Loan

Fed.

Corp.,

337

R.

Civ.

U.S.

P.

541,

The orders Shareef seeks to appeal are neither

final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3