UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1199
DIANA M. CAMPITELLI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
THOMAS L. OSBORNE; MARJORIE D. NESBITT,
Administrator, Human Resources; E. KENNEDY,
President, Kennedy Personnel Services; STEPHEN
KENNEDY; GISELE M. MATHEWS, Assistant Attorney
General, MDOT,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
PARRIS N. GLENDENING, Governor,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-00-
2796-L)
Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: August 8, 2001
Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Diana M. Campitelli, Appellant Pro Se. John Charles Bell, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Diana M. Campitelli appeals district court’s order denying her
motion for default judgment against several unserved parties in
this civil action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and
certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292
(1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a
final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the
appeal as interlocutory. Campitelli’s pending motions for stay or
for temporary restraining orders are denied. The motion for abey-
ance is denied and the motion to expedite this appeal is denied as
moot. We decline to order production of transcripts at the govern-
ment’s expense and decline to issue a writ of mandamus. We find no
grounds for the suspension or disbarment of Maryland Attorney
General J. Joseph Curran, Jr., or any of the members of his staff.
Campitelli’s motion seeking suspension or disbarment is therefore
denied. Appellees’ motion to dismiss is granted. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3