Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06968/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06968-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6968

ALBERT SNYDER,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 versus

SHIRLEY L. PHELPS-ROPER; REBEKAH A.

PHELPS-DAVIS,

 Defendants - Appellants,

 and

FRED W. PHELPS, SR.; JOHN DOES; JANE DOES;

WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH, INCORPORATED,

 Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.

(1:06-cv-01389-RDB)

Submitted: October 31, 2007 Decided: December 4, 2007

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, Rebekah A. Phelps-Davis, Appellants Pro

Se. Sean E. Summers, Paul W. Minnich, Rees Griffiths, BARLEY &

Appeal: 07-6968 Doc: 35 Filed: 12/04/2007 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

SNYDER, LLC, York, Pennsylvania; Craig T. Trebilcock, SHUMAKER &

WILLIAMS, PC, York, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-6968 Doc: 35 Filed: 12/04/2007 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Rebekah A. Phelps-Davis and Shirley L. Phelps-Roper seek

to appeal the district court’s order denying their motion to

dismiss or for summary judgment in Appellee’s civil 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 (1949). The order Phelps-Davis and

Phelps-Roper seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We further deny the

Appellants’ renewed motion for stay, motion for emergency hearing,

and motion for the district court to provide original audio tapes.

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

Appeal: 07-6968 Doc: 35 Filed: 12/04/2007 Pg: 3 of 3