Case Name: 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-03
Citations: 670 F. App'x 123
Docket Number: No. 16-1045
Parties: 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.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 123–124

Head Matter:
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.
No. 16-1045
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 18, 2016
Decided: November 3, 2016
Sidney Sehupak, LAW OFFICES OF SIDNEY SCHUPAK, LLC, Gaithersburg, Maryland, for Appellant. Alexander Fran-euzenko, Broderick Coleman Dunn, COOK CRAIG & FRANCUZENKO, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (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