Allen v. City of Raleigh Police Dep't

Full title: WANDA M. ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF RALEIGH POLICE DEPARTMENT…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Dec 22, 2022

No. 22-1361 (4th Cir. Dec. 22, 2022)

Opinion

22-1361

12-22-2022

WANDA M. ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF RALEIGH POLICE DEPARTMENT; CAPTAIN MURR, Defendants-Appellees.

Wanda M. Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Jordan Simmons, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: December 20, 2022

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:21-cv-00471-M)

Wanda M. Allen, Appellant Pro Se.

Christopher Jordan Simmons, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM

Wanda M. Allen has filed two notices of appeal in her pending civil action. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Allen fails to identify the order from which she seeks to appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B) ("The notice of appeal must . . . designate the judgment-or the appealable order-from which the appeal is taken."). Moreover, the district court has not yet entered any final or immediately appealable interlocutory or collateral order in Allen's civil case. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Allen's motions for appointment of counsel and to transfer the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED

Insofar as Allen's informal brief could be liberally construed as seeking to appeal the district court's January 10, 2022, order granting Defendants' motion for extension of time to answer or otherwise plead in response to Allen's complaint, that order is not a final order or an immediately appealable interlocutory or collateral order.