Case ID: f-appx_707/html/0785-01.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

Tigress Sydney Acute MCDANIEL, as lawful guardian ad litem of Minor Child A.M., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VTT MANAGEMENT INC.; VTT Charlotte LLC; Debbie Hicks; Christopher Loebsack; Latonya Cameron; Brittany Banks; Victor Jimenez; Mecklenburg County Code Enforcement; Marta Carson, in her individual and official capacity; Becky T. Tin, in her individual and official capacity; Donnie Hoover, in his individual and official capacity; Elizabeth Thorton Trosch, in her individual and official capacity; John and Jane Does 1-30, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-1841
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: December 28, 2017
    Decided: January 5, 2018
    Tigress Sydney McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se. James Daniel McAlister, MCAN-GUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, LLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Daniel Edward Peterson, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Charlotte, North Carolina; Kathryn Hicks Shields, Assistant Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tigress Sydney Acute McDaniel seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation and granting some, but not all, Defendants’ motions to dismiss. 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. § 1292 (2012); 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 McDaniel seeks to appeal is.neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant Appellees’ motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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