Case ID: f-appx_535/html/0315-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Torrie JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; Frederick Bealefeld, Police Commissioner Individually and as Police Commissioner of the Baltimore City Police Department; Adam Long, Police Officer, Sequence # F648 Individually and as a Police Officer of the Baltimore City Police Department; Bernard Taylor, Police Officer, Sequence # 1635 Individually and as a Police Officer of the Baltimore City Police Department; John and Jane Does 1-10, Individually and as Currently Unknown Police Officers of the Baltimore City Police Department; Richard and Jane Roes 1-10, Individually and as Currently Unknown Supervisors of the Baltimore City Police Department; Lynette Morton, Parking Control Agent Baltimore City Department of Transportation; Linda McClelan, Parking Control Agent Baltimore City Department of Transportation; James Doe, Director, Individually and as Currently Unknown Director(on May 1, 2010) of Baltimore City Department of Transportation; Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-1652.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 25, 2013.
    Decided: July 29, 2013.
    Torrie Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Constantine Sakles, Baltimore City Police Department, Towson, Maryland; Danielle Grilli Marcus, Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, LLP, Thurman Wilbert Zollicoffer, Jr., City Solicitor, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Torrie Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying Johnson’s motions to appoint counsel, to extend the time to file her amended complaint, to strike the answer, to file a surreply to the answer, and to modify the scheduling order. The Appellees McLean and Morton have moved to dismiss the appeal. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Johnson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant Appelees’ motion and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Johnson’s motion to appoint counsel. 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.