Court Opinion

ID: 9930447
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 21:01:29.779413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:17:37.327433
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2272      Doc: 5         Filed: 02/05/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-2272

        DASHON HINES,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        DANIEL E. FARRINGTON; ROBYN WELTER; SODEXO USA,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:23-cv-02221-TDC)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 5, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Dashon Hines, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2272      Doc: 5         Filed: 02/05/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Dashon Hines seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion

        and designating the underlying case as related to the case Hines v. Sodexo USA, No. 8:23-

        cv-00613-TDC. 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

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

        order. 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