Debra Meadows v. Charles County Board of Ed.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to participate in oral argument [1000087313-2] Originating case number: 8:16-cv-02897-DKC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000140589]. Mailed to: D Meadows. [17-1586]

Appeal: 17-1586

Doc: 16

Filed: 08/21/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1586

DEBRA F. MEADOWS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHARLES COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION; KELLER III BUS
SERVICE INCORPORATED, Keller Jr. Owner/President of School Board;
HELEN E. KELLER, Owner; KELLER TRANSPORTATION INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Timothy J. Sullivan, Magistrate Judge. (8:16-cv-02897-DKC)

Submitted: August 17, 2017

Decided: August 21, 2017

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Debra F. Meadows, Appellant Pro Se. Edmund J. O’Meally, PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A.,
Towson, Maryland; Mark Jay Swerdlin, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL, LLP, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-1586

Doc: 16

Filed: 08/21/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
On May 1, 2017, Debra F. Meadows filed a notice of appeal in her pending civil
case that did not clearly state the order she sought to appeal. In her informal brief,
Meadows references the magistrate judge’s January 25, 2017, order denying her motion
for a protective order. 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 Meadows seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order.

Accordingly, we deny Meadows’ motion for oral

argument and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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