Pierre Augustin v. Sectek, Incorporated ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-1980
    PIERRE RICHARD AUGUSTIN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    SECTEK, INCORPORATED; SECTEK PROTECTIVE SERVICES; WILFRED D.
    BLOOD;   MICHELLE   FOWLER;   FREDERICK   SPRINGFIELD;  NATIONAL
    ASSOCIATION OF SPECIAL POLICE AND SECURITY OFFICERS, (NASPSO);
    CALEB BURRISS; JOHN DOE, Individuals yet to be determined, if
    any, also involved in the making of materially false statement
    and fraud as involved in this case; JANE DOE, Individuals yet to
    be determined, if any, also involved in the making of materially
    false statement and fraud as involved in this case,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.    Claude M. Hilton, Senior
    District Judge. (1:11-cv-00490-CMH-IDD)
    Submitted:   February 9, 2012             Decided:   February 13, 2012
    Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Pierre Richard Augustin, Appellant Pro Se. Steven William Ray,
    ISLER, DARE, RAY, RADCLIFFE & CONNOLLY, PC, Vienna, Virginia,
    for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Pierre    Richard     Augustin           seeks     to     appeal    the        district
    court’s order dismissing his claims against some but not all of
    the    defendants    named     in    his       suit.      This    court       may     exercise
    jurisdiction only over final orders, 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     (2006),
    and    certain     interlocutory          and       collateral     orders,       
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
     (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
    Loan    Corp.,   
    337 U.S. 541
    ,       545-46       (1949).         The     order    that
    Augustin    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     the    court       and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-1980

Filed Date: 2/13/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021