Case ID: f-appx_654/html/0590-02.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

Shahnaz POURSAIED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EEOC; Constangy Brooks & Smith, LLP, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-2534
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 31, 2016
    Decided: July 5, 2016
    
      Shahnaz Poursaied, Appellant Pro Se. Steven N. Baker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina; H. Lane Young, II, HAWKINS, PARNELL, THACKSTON & YOUNG, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for Ap-pellees.
    Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Shahnaz Poursaied seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her civil action with prejudice on the majority of her claims and without prejudice as to her potential claim under the Privacy Act. 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 Poursaied seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24, 629-30 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we 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