Case ID: f-appx_398/html/0898-01.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

Pamela MELVIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; United States of America, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-1577.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 14, 2010.
    Decided: Oct. 20, 2010.
    Pamela Melvin, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina; Marian Ashley Harder, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Pamela Melvin seeks to appeal the dismissal of some, but not all, of her civil claims, based upon the recommendation of the magistrate judge, as well as her motion for preliminary injunctive relief. 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.CivJP. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The portion of the district court’s order dismissing some, but not all, of Melvin’s claims is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss that portion of Melvin’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

As for the denial Melvin’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Melvin v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 5:09-cv-00235-FL, 2010 WL 1979880 (E.D.N.C. May 13, 2010). We deny Melvin’s motion for stay pending appeal and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.