Gwennetta Pratt-Miller v. Craig Patterson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00666-LMB-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999961353]. [16-1045]

Appeal: 16-1045

Doc: 26

Filed: 11/03/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1045

GWENNETTA PRATT-MILLER; CURTIS DAWKINS,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
SHERIFF BETH ARTHUR,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
CRAIG PATTERSON, individually and in his Official Capacity;
COUNTY OF ARLINGTON VIRGINIA; ARLINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00666-LMB-JFA)

Submitted:

October 18, 2016

Decided:

November 3, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sidney
Schupak,
LAW
Gaithersburg, Maryland,

OFFICES
OF
SIDNEY
SCHUPAK,
LLC,
for Appellant. Alexander Francuzenko,

Appeal: 16-1045

Doc: 26

Filed: 11/03/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Broderick Coleman Dunn, COOK CRAIG & FRANCUZENKO, PLLC, Fairfax,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1045

Doc: 26

Filed: 11/03/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Gwennetta Pratt-Miller and Curtis Dawkins seek to appeal
the district court’s order granting summary judgment for the
Appellee but allowing the claims against the remaining Defendant
to go forward.

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, 54546 (1949).

The order the Appellants seek to appeal is neither a

final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
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

3