Louretha King v. Boyd Bennett

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6515 LOURETHA KING, Plaintiff - Appellant, and SANDRA ETTERS; RONDA SINGLETARY; DEVEN DEAL, Plaintiffs, v. BOYD BENNETT, Secretary, in his individual capacity; ALVIN KELLER, in his official capacity; ANNIE HARVEY, Administrator, in her individual and official capacities; TIMOTHY KIMBLE, Administrator, in his individual and official capacities; UNIT MANAGER MOORE, in his individual capacity; UNIT MANAGER FORD, Assistant, in her individual capacity; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WIGGINS, in his individual capacity; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SIMS, in his official capacity; NURSE BARBOSA, in his individual capacity; LAMAR BLALOCK, Unit Manager, in his individual capacity; JESSICA JONES, Correctional Officer, in her individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, District Judge. (5:09-ct-03187-D) Submitted: August 25, 2011 Decided: August 30, 2011 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louretha King, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Finarelli, Yvonne Bulluck Ricci, Assistant Attorneys General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Louretha King seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her claims in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action involving multiple parties. 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, 545-46 (1949). The order King seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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