Opinion
No. 18-1023
01-28-2019
DAREK J. KITLINSKI; LISA M. KITLINSKI, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Drug Enforcement Administration As to Privacy Act Claims; OTHER UNNAMED EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION AND OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL; MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Defendants - Appellees, and LORETTA LYNCH, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; JOSE FERNANDO RAMON, Special Agent, Office of Professional Responsibility, Drug Enforcement Administration; DONNA A. RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a Donna Ashe Section Chief, Research and Analysis Staff of the Human Resources Division Drug Enforcement Administration, Defendants.
Jack L. White, Kevin E. Byrnes, FH+H, PLLC, Tysons, Virginia, for Appellants. G. Zachary Terwilliger, United States Attorney, Rebecca S. Levenson, Assistant United States Attorney, Kimere J. Kimball, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O'Grady, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00060-LO-IDD) Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jack L. White, Kevin E. Byrnes, FH+H, PLLC, Tysons, Virginia, for Appellants. G. Zachary Terwilliger, United States Attorney, Rebecca S. Levenson, Assistant United States Attorney, Kimere J. Kimball, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Darek J. Kitlinski and Lisa M. Kitlinski appeal the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Office of the Inspector General, and others. 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. § 1291 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not rule on the Kitlinskis' wrongful termination claims. Thus, the district court's order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696-97 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court so that the court can consider the wrongful termination claims. 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 AND REMANDED