Court Opinion

ID: 9895033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-03 21:01:00.428857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:18.515404
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1560      Doc: 5           Filed: 11/02/2023   Pg: 1 of 2

                                              UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 23-1560

        BRITTANY FLUTE,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        KRISTI JOHNSON-FORD, HR Manager; ADRIENE SCHIFRIEN, MLS Manager;
        KAREN BRESSLER, Client Service Supervisor; MELVIN CAUTHEN, Manager
        III, STD, HIV Services; KIMBERLY TOWNSEND, Head of Dennis AVE,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (8:22-cv-03344-DLB)

        Submitted: October 31, 2023                                  Decided: November 2, 2023

        Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Brittany Flute, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1560      Doc: 5        Filed: 11/02/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Brittany Flute seeks to appeal the district court’s February 24, 2023, order

        dismissing without prejudice her employment discrimination complaint for failure to

        comply with the court’s prior order directing her to amend the complaint. However, after

        Flute noted her appeal, the district court reopened her case and expressly rescinded its

        February 24 order. The court subsequently entered a final order, but Flute did not file a

        new notice of appeal. As such, there is no district court order presently before this court

        for review. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See United

        States v. Doe, 962 F.3d 139, 143 (4th Cir. 2020) (noting that “we have jurisdiction only

        over final orders and certain interlocutory and collateral orders”). 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

                                                    2