Tanya Cetina v. Michelin North America

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:12-cv-02222-TMC-JDA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999202247].. [13-1864]

Appeal: 13-1864

Doc: 11

Filed: 09/26/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1864

TANYA LYNN CETINA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA; NEWBOLD SERVICES; CLINT MORGAN; DAVE
MURPHY; DAVE BROWN; DAVE MAUGER,
Defendants – Appellees,
and

SANDRA CHAVEZ,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:12-cv-02222-TMC-JDA)

Submitted:

September 24, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and
Senior Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Decided:

Circuit

September 26, 2013

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tanya Lynn Cetina, Appellant Pro Se. Collie William Lehn, Jr.,
Fred W. Suggs, Jr., OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART,
PC, Greenville, South Carolina; Sima Bhakta Patel, Thomas Louis

Appeal: 13-1864

Doc: 11

Stephenson,
Appellees.

Filed: 09/26/2013

NEXSEN

PRUET,

Pg: 2 of 3

Greenville,

South

Carolina,

for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-1864

Doc: 11

Filed: 09/26/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Tanya Lynn Cetina seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss
her claims against Defendants Dave Mauger and Michelin North
America,

Incorporated.

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, 545-46 (1949).
several

other

Defendants

Because Cetina’s claims against

remain,

the

orders

Cetina

seeks

to

appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or
collateral orders.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack

of jurisdiction.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3