Case Name: Priscilla Penne WHITE, for Davie RV Supply LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Karen BAILEY; Cit Group; Allen Whitaker, Sheriff, Davie County; Nick Pappas; Garfield V. Waugh, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-07-31
Citations: 15 F. App'x 112
Docket Number: No. 01-1241
Parties: Priscilla Penne WHITE, for Davie RV Supply LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Karen BAILEY; Cit Group; Allen Whitaker, Sheriff, Davie County; Nick Pappas; Garfield V. Waugh, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 15
Pages: 112–113

Head Matter:
Priscilla Penne WHITE, for Davie RV Supply LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Karen BAILEY; Cit Group; Allen Whitaker, Sheriff, Davie County; Nick Pappas; Garfield V. Waugh, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-1241.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2001.
Decided July 31, 2001.
Priscilla Penne White, pro se. Derek J. Allen, Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, Greensboro, NC; Henry P. Van Hoy, II, Martin & Van Hoy, L.L.P., Mocksville, NC, for appellees.
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Priscilla Penne White appeals the district court's order dismissing White's action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) based on motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) filed by each Defendant except Alan Whitaker. However, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); 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). Because the order appealed here does not address all of the parties to this action it is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory, and 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.