Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01906/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01906-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Blayton
Appellee
City of North Myrtle Beach
Appellee
Joel Davis
Appellee
Douglas Maddock
Appellee
Joyce E. Rowley
Appellant
John Smithson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1906

JOYCE E. ROWLEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CITY OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH; JOHN SMITHSON,

City Manager; JOEL DAVIS, Assistant City

Manager; KEVIN BLAYTON, Public Works Director;

DOUGLAS MADDOCK, Planning and Development

Director; individually and in their

representative capacities as employees of the

City North Myrtle Beach,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.

(4:06-cv-01873-TLW)

Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 18, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joyce E. Rowley, Appellant Pro Se. Derwood Lorraine Aydlette, III,

Christopher Wofford Johnson, GIGNILLIAT, SAVITZ & BETTIS, Columbia,

South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-1906 Doc: 30 Filed: 12/18/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Joyce E. Rowley seeks to appeal the district court order

consolidating her two cases and denying as moot several pending

motions. 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 Rowley seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny

Rowley’s motion for stay of proceedings 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

Appeal: 07-1906 Doc: 30 Filed: 12/18/2007 Pg: 2 of 2