Court Opinion

ID: 9401147
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-10 21:00:42.23001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:50.960642
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1904      Doc: 14         Filed: 06/09/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1904

        C. HOLMES, a/k/a Cynthia Holmes, a/k/a Cynthia Collie Holmes,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        GRANUAILE, LLC; J. P. WALSH, individually and as related to Granuaile, LLC; L.
        WALSH, individually and as related to Granuaile, LLC,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:20-cv-01748-BHH-MHC)

        Submitted: May 17, 2023                                              Decided: June 9, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        C. Holmes, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1904      Doc: 14         Filed: 06/09/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               C. Holmes seeks to appeal the district court’s orders referring her case to a

        magistrate judge, denying her motion for reconsideration of the referral order, and denying

        her motion for a stay pending appeal. 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 orders Holmes seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or

        collateral orders. 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