Case Name: Joyce E. ROWLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-18
Citations: 258 F. App'x 546
Docket Number: No. 07-1906
Parties: Joyce E. ROWLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 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.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 258
Pages: 546–547

Head Matter:
Joyce E. ROWLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 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.
No. 07-1906.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 13, 2007.
Decided: Dec. 18, 2007.
Joyce E. Rowley, Appellant Pro Se. Deiwood Lorraine Aydlette, III, Christopher Wofford Johnson, Gignilliat, Savitz & Bettis, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (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.