Emma Victoria Johnson Howard v. Vance County Sheriff Dept.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cv-00110-FL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999713155]. Mailed to: Emma Victoria Howard P. O. Box 51808 Durham, NC 27717. [15-2100]

Appeal: 15-2100

Doc: 16

Filed: 12/07/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2100

EMMA VICTORIA JOHNSON HOWARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
VANCE COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT.; W. B. LILLEY, Sergeant of the
Vance County Sheriff's Dept., Individually and in his
officially capacity; VANCE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT; RAYMOND
EARL DICKERSON, d/b/a T.L. Perkinson Wrecker Service,
Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:15-cv-00110-FL)

Submitted:

November 19, 2015

Decided:

December 7, 2015

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emma Victoria Howard, Appellant Pro Se.
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC,
Carolina, for Appellees.

Sonny Sade Haynes,
Winston-Salem, North

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2100

Doc: 16

Filed: 12/07/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Emma Victoria Johnson Howard seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to
dismiss Howard’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action in part and to
allow

certain

claims

to

proceed.

This

court

may

exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012),
and

certain

interlocutory

and

collateral

orders,

28

U.S.C.

§ 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).
to

appeal

is

neither

a

final

interlocutory or collateral order.
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

order

The order Howard seeks
nor

an

appealable

Accordingly, we dismiss the

We dispense with oral argument

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

DISMISSED

2