Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01045/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01045-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1045

GWENNETTA PRATT-MILLER; CURTIS DAWKINS,

Plaintiffs – Appellants,

v.

SHERIFF BETH ARTHUR,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

CRAIG PATTERSON, individually and in his Official Capacity; 

COUNTY OF ARLINGTON VIRGINIA; ARLINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

OFFICE,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:15-cv-00666-LMB-JFA)

Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: November 3, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sidney Schupak, LAW OFFICES OF SIDNEY SCHUPAK, LLC, 

Gaithersburg, Maryland, for Appellant. Alexander Francuzenko,

Appeal: 16-1045 Doc: 26 Filed: 11/03/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Broderick Coleman Dunn, COOK CRAIG & FRANCUZENKO, PLLC, Fairfax, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1045 Doc: 26 Filed: 11/03/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Gwennetta Pratt-Miller and Curtis Dawkins seek to appeal 

the district court’s order granting summary judgment for the 

Appellee but allowing the claims against the remaining Defendant 

to go forward. 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 (1949). The order the Appellants 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 

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

Appeal: 16-1045 Doc: 26 Filed: 11/03/2016 Pg: 3 of 3