Opinion
No. 20-1956
02-25-2021
FELICIA A. UNDERDUE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant - Appellee.
Felicia A. Underdue, Appellant Pro Se. Tory Ian Summey, Keith Michael Weddington, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cv-00653-RJC) Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Felicia A. Underdue, Appellant Pro Se. Tory Ian Summey, Keith Michael Weddington, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Felicia A. Underdue appeals the district court's order denying her motion for immediate reinstatement of her employment, motion for employment records, and motion to compel. 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 district court properly construed Underdue's motion for reinstatement of employment as a motion for a preliminary injunction, the denial of which is immediately appealable. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Underdue's motion for a preliminary injunction and affirm that portion of the district court's order. See Roe v. Dep't of Def., 947 F.3d 207, 219 (4th Cir. 2020) (stating standard). The district court's decision to deny Underdue's discovery-related motions, however, is not immediately appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss the portion of Underdue's appeal challenging the denial of those motions for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Underdue's motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the resolution of this 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART