UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1486
CAROLYN YVONNE MURPHY TAYLOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF COLUMBIA; CHARLES AUSTIN, in his official capacity
as City Manager and his individual capacity; DONNIE
BALZEIGLER, in his official capacity as Code Enforcement
Officer and his individual capacity; LARRY MCCALL, in his
official capacity as Chief Code Enforcement Officer and his
individual capacity,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
WALTER TODD, Esq., in his official capacity as Assistant
City Attorney and his individual capacity; DANA MARIE THYE,
Esq., in her official capacity as Assistant City Attorney
and her individual capacity; HUNTER P. SWANSON, Esq., in her
official capacity as Assistant City Attorney and her
individual capacity,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph R. McCrorey, Magistrate
Judge. (3:07-cv-00983-JFA-JRM)
Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 19, 2009
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carolyn Yvonne Murphy Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Gordon
Cooper, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina;
William Henry Davidson II, Matthew Blaine Rosbrugh, DAVIDSON &
LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Carolyn Yvonne Murphy Taylor seeks to appeal
magistrate judge’s orders granting in part and denying in part
her motions to compel discovery. 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 (1949). The orders Taylor seeks to
appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or
collateral orders. Accordingly, we 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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3