Case ID: f-appx_235/html/0067-01.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

DeShanta HINTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LANHAM FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, and John Doe, Jr., General Manager, Lanham Ford Motor Company; Paul Timko, Special Agent for the FBI; Karen Nester, Special Agent for the FBI; Unknown FBI Agents; United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defendants.
    No. 06-2074.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 13, 2007.
    Decided: Aug. 21, 2007.
    DeShanta Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. John Paul Lynch, Charles Henry Henderson, McNamee, Hosea, Jernigan, Kim, Greenan & Walker, PA, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

DeShanta Hinton seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing certain defendants in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) suit. 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). In this case, claims remain pending in the district court against several other defendants. The order Hinton seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Baird v. Palmer, 114 F.3d 39, 42 (4th Cir.1997). 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.