Case ID: f-appx_106/html/0870-01.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

Tracy WOODY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ADVANCED INTERNET MARKETING, INCORPORATED; America Online, Incorporated; the Brock Agency, Incorporated; Chris White; Joseph Chou; Cutting Edge Media; Consumer Services; Alvin G. Domi-ney; Kountry Boy Advertising; Momentum Health & Nutrition; E-Talent Base; Galaxy Mall, Incorporated; John Wright Publishing; Homestead Schools, Incorporated; Time Publishing Company; Leadsource International; William Livingstone; the News and Observer Publishing Company; Prepaid Legal Services; Quality Tek Financial Services; Quantum Publishing; Perry Wilkes; Quinton Hall; Aaron Macerelli; Sam’s, a/k/a Sam’s Home Employment; SFI Software; Starcrest of California; Alex Stroka; Next Century Marketing, Incorporated; International Team-works, Incorporated, a/k/a ITI, Incorporated; Windsor Judicial System; John Robert Powers, Incorporated; Newslinc/Winning!; Ebay, Incorporated; Charles Vineyard; United Parcel Service, Incorporated; Public Service Company of North Carolina, Inc.; Cliff Smith; Business Opportunities Journal; MBI/in Trading; Financial Automated Service & Trade, a/k/a F.A.S.T.; Cornerstone Marketing, Incorporated; Decide to Win; Diversified Cellular Technologies; Lion’s Twin Marketing; M.O.R.E., Incorporated; Data Tech, Incorporated; Skycom; Chiappone Mail Enterprises, Incorporated; International Modeling & Talent Association; Center for Science in the Public Interest; Erie Insurance Exchange; David Wright Insurance Company; American Dream Nutrition, Incorporated; Staples, Incorporated; Alan Bechtold; Success Marketing Group, Incorporated; Ronald L. Sargent; Erie Insurance Company; Erie Insurance Property & Casualty Company, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 03-1965.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 18, 2004.
    Decided: Aug. 20, 2004.
    Tracy Woody, Appellant pro se.
    Mark Jay Prak, Charles Earp Coble, Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, Raleigh, North Carolina; Brian Edward Moore, Howard, Stallings, from & Hutson, P.A., Raleigh, North Carolina; Cedric R. Perry, Raleigh, North Carolina; Herbert P. Henderson, II, Reidenbach, Henderson & Pecht, Lancaster, Pennsylvania; Johnny Morgan Loper, Melody Carroll Ray-Wellborn, Matthew Sean Healey, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Raleigh, North Carolina; Shawn Douglas Mercer, Johnson, Hearn, Vinegar & Gee, P.L.L.C., Raleigh, North Carolina; Vijay Fadia, Torrance, California; Hugh Stevens, C. Amanda Martin, Everett, Gaskins, Hancock & Stevens, Raleigh, North Carolina; Perry Wilkes, Columbus, Ohio; George Ollie Winborne, Jr., Alston & Bird, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina; Alycia Sara Levy, Cranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina; Chiappone Mail Enterprises, Incorporated, West Babylon, New York; Carl Norris Patterson, Jr., Matthew Duvall Rhoad, Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, Raleigh, North Carolina; James Donald Cowan, Jr., Smith Moore, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina; Wendy I. Sexton, Smith Moore, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Tracy Woody seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing all but two of the defendants named in the underlying civil action. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Woody seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED