Court Opinion

ID: 9391006
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 21:01:34.847892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:38.836795
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2317      Doc: 11         Filed: 04/27/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-2317

        CLINTON BRINSON,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        FRED SMITH COMPANY,

                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:22-cv-00197-D)

        Submitted: April 25, 2023                                         Decided: April 27, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Clinton Brinson, Appellant Pro Se. Dalton Blair Green, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH
        SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2317      Doc: 11         Filed: 04/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Clinton Brinson has filed a notice of appeal in his civil action against Fred Smith

        Company alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 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). Review of the docket confirms that, at the time

        Brinson filed his notice of appeal, his action was still pending in the district court, and

        Brinson does not otherwise identify an appealable interlocutory or collateral order from

        which he wishes to appeal. 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