Opinion
21-1996
12-21-2021
ALICE GUAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GARY BELL; SERGEY KATSENELENBOGEN; JEN KIM; JAMES C. CLARK, as an individual and in his capacity as the Judge for Alexandria Circuit Court the 18th Judicial Circuit of Virginia; DONALD W. LEMONS, as an individual, and as the Chief Justice for the Supreme Court of Virginia; S. BERNARD GOODWYN, as an individual, and as the Justice for the Supreme Court of Virginia; WILLIAM C. MIMS, as an individual, and as the Justice for the Supreme Court of Virginia; CLEO E. POWELL, as an individual, and as the Justice for the Supreme Court of Virginia; STEPHEN R. MCCULLOUGH, as an individual, and as the Justice for the Supreme Court of Virginia; CHARLES S. RUSSELL, as an individual, and as the Senior Justice for the Supreme Court of Virginia; LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR., as an individual, and as the Senior Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia; LEROY F. MILLETTE, JR., as an individual, and as the Senior Justice for the Supreme Court of Virginia; THE ALEXANDRIA CIRCUIT COURT, the 18th Judicial Circuit of Virginia; THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees.
Alice Guan, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: December 6, 2021.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Theresa C. Buchanan, Magistrate Judge. (1:21-cv-00752-RDA-TCB)
Alice Guan, Appellant Pro Se.
Before THACKER, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alice Guan seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order granting Guan's original and amended motions for an extension of time to file responses in opposition to Defendants' motions to dismiss Guan's first amended complaint. 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). The magistrate judge's order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny as moot all pending motions. 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