Court Opinion

ID: 9902078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 21:00:48.748376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:45.061364
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1779      Doc: 8        Filed: 11/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1779

        FALINE ARNOLD,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        HUNTINGTON INGALLS INCORPORATED,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:22-cv-00384-RBS-DEM)

        Submitted: November 16, 2023                                Decided: November 21, 2023

        Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Faline Arnold, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Kerk Reyes, KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC,
        Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1779       Doc: 8         Filed: 11/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Faline Arnold seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting her motion for an

        extension of time in which to file an amended complaint, as well as her motion to file an

        amended complaint, but denying Arnold’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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, 545-46 (1949). The order Arnold seeks to appeal is neither a

        final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Miller v. Simmons, 814

        F.2d 962, 964 (4th Cir. 1987) (“Orders denying motions for appointment of counsel are

        not, prior to final disposition of the case in the district court, ‘final decisions’ of district

        courts as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 1291 [and] . . . are not within the parameters of the

        narrow exception to § 1291, articulated in Cohen.”). Accordingly, we 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