UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2392
KENDALL R. SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
VERIZON WASHINGTON, DC, INCORPORATED; VERIZON MID-ATLANTIC,
INCORPORATED; VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED; REED
SMITH LLP,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:11-cv-01301-PJM)
Submitted: March 29, 2012 Decided: April 2, 2012
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kendall R. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Helenanne Connolly, REED
SMITH, LLP, Falls Church, Virginia; Betty S. W. Graumlich, REED
SMITH, LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Angela Avis Holland, REED SMITH,
LLP, Washington, DC, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kendall R. Smith filed an employment discrimination
action against Verizon Washington, DC, Incorporated (“Verizon
DC”), and other defendants. He now seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing all parties except Verizon DC;
dismissing three claims against Verizon DC with prejudice;
dismissing the remaining claims against Verizon DC without
prejudice; and granting Smith leave to file an amended complaint
as to these remaining claims. Smith has filed an amended
complaint below. 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 Smith 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
2