UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2424
CHARLENE RAIFORD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL UNIVERSITY, through the BOARD OF
GOVERNORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA; RAYMOND C.
PIERCE, In his individual capacity; LAUREN COLLINS, In her
individual capacity; NICHELLE PERRY, In her individual
capacity,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
GEORGE MELVILLE JOHNSON,
Party-in-Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:12-cv-00548-CCE-JEP)
Submitted: March 20, 2017 Decided: March 28, 2017
Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Charlene Raiford, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly D. Potter,
Assistant Attorney General, Joseph A. Newsome, NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Vicente O. De La
Cruz, MELVILLE JOHNSON, P.C., Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Charlene Raiford appeals the district court’s orders
denying Defendants’ summary judgment motion in part, entering
judgment in favor of Defendants after a jury trial, and denying
her postverdict motion for judgment as a matter of law. We
affirm in part and dismiss in part.
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). The summary judgment order Raiford seeks to appeal
is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180, 184 (2011)
(holding that “a party . . . [may not] appeal an order denying
summary judgment after a full trial on the merits” because that
“order retains its interlocutory character as simply a step
along the route to final judgment”). Accordingly, we dismiss
this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Turning to Raiford’s appeal of the jury verdict in
Defendants’ favor and the denial of her postverdict motion, we
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. There
was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s handling of
the video deposition, the challenged jury instructions
accurately conveyed relevant contextual information to the jury,
3
and the evidence supported the jury’s verdict. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment. Raiford v. N.C. Cent. Univ., No. 1:12-cv-
00548-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C. Oct. 15, 2015). 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
4