Case Name: Sherrie F. BRINKLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DILLARD'S, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-27
Citations: 201 F. App'x 941
Docket Number: No. 06-1705
Parties: Sherrie F. BRINKLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DILLARD’S, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 201
Pages: 941–941

Head Matter:
Sherrie F. BRINKLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DILLARD’S, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-1705.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 23, 2006.
Decided: Sept. 27, 2006.
Harris D. Butler, III, Tim Schulte, Rebecca H. Royals, Butler, Williams & Skilling, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Rodney Allen Satterwhite, Jennifer Magoulas Campbell, McGuirewoods, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Sherrie F. Brinkley seeks to appeal the district court's order granting Dillard's motion to compel arbitration. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Brinkley seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appeal-able interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We note that our dismissal of the appeal as interlocutory operates as a dismissal without prejudice. 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.