Court Opinion

ID: 9892794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-24 21:00:46.727737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:43:14.948957
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1740      Doc: 24         Filed: 10/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1740

        NYAH SEKEL,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        CH MF BTH II, Alexandria Old Town LLC; ALEXAN FLORENCE, Manager;
        BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, C/O CT Corporation System
        (Reg. Agent),

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. William Edward Fitzpatrick, Magistrate Judge. (1:23-cv-00706-RDA-WEF)

        Submitted: October 19, 2023                                   Decided: October 23, 2023

        Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Nyah Sekel, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Christian Dugan, GALLAGHER EVELIUS &
        JONES, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1740       Doc: 24         Filed: 10/23/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Nyah Sekel seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order granting Defendants’

        motion for an extension of time to file a response to her civil action. Appellees move to

        dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

               This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and

        certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);

        Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949). The order Sekel

        seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

        Accordingly, we grant Appellees’ motion 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional

        process.

                                                                                       DISMISSED

                                                       2