Case Name: Debra F. MEADOWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARLES COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION; Keller III Bus Service Incorporated, Keller Jr. Owner/President of School Board; Helen E. Keller, Owner; Keller Transportation Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-21
Citations: 696 F. App'x 105
Docket Number: No. 17-1586
Parties: Debra F. MEADOWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARLES COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION; Keller III Bus Service Incorporated, Keller Jr. Owner/President of School Board; Helen E. Keller, Owner; Keller Transportation Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 696
Pages: 105–105

Head Matter:
Debra F. MEADOWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARLES COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION; Keller III Bus Service Incorporated, Keller Jr. Owner/President of School Board; Helen E. Keller, Owner; Keller Transportation Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-1586
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 17, 2017
Decided: August 21, 2017
Debra F. Meadows, Appellant Pro Se. Edmund J. O’Meally, PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A., Towson, Maiyland; Mark Jay Swerdlin, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
On May 1, 2017, Debra F. Meadows filed a notice of appeal in her pending civil case that did not clearly state the order she sought to appeal. In her informal brief, Meadows references the magistrate judge's January 25, 2017, order denying her motion for a protective order. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Meadows seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Meadows' motion for oral argument 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process,
DISMISSED