Case ID: f-appx_16/html/0196-01.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

Diana M. CAMPITELLI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas L. OSBORNE; Marjorie D. Nesbitt, Administrator, Human Resources; E. Kennedy, President, Kennedy Personnel Services; Stephen Kennedy; Gisele M. Mathews, Assistant Attorney General, MDOT, Defendants-Appellees, and Parris N. Glendening, Governor, Defendant.
    No. 01-1199.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 27, 2001.
    Decided Aug. 8, 2001.
    
      Diana M. Campitelli, pro se. John Charles Bell, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, for appellees.
    Before LUTTIG and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Diana M. Campitelli appeals district court’s order denying her motion for default judgment against several unserved parties in this civil action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); 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 here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. Campitelh’s pending motions for stay or for temporary restraining orders are denied. The motion for abeyance is denied and the motion to expedite this appeal is denied as moot. We decline to order production of transcripts at the government’s expense and decline to issue a writ of mandamus. We find no grounds for the suspension or disbarment of Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran, Jr., or any of the members of his staff. Campitelli’s motion seeking suspension or disbarment is therefore denied. Appellees’ motion to dismiss is granted. 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.