U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2002

Patterson v. American Kennel Club

Patterson v. American Kennel Club
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided August 5, 2002

Patterson v. American Kennel Club

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1502

LORIA ANN PATTERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

THE AMERICAN KENNEL CLUB, a/k/a American Kennel Club, Incorporated, Defendant - Appellee.

No. 02-1503

LORIA ANN PATTERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

THE AMERICAN KENNEL CLUB, a/k/a American Kennel Club, Incorporated, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge; William A. Webb, Magistrate Judge. (CA-01-20-5-BR) Submitted: June 27, 2002 Decided: August 5, 2002

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Loria Ann Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Matthew Keen, Sheri Lea Roberson, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Loria Ann Patterson appeals the magistrate judge’s order approving a discovery plan relating to her claims under the Equal Pay Act (No. 02-1502). She also appeals the district court’s order setting a trial date (No. 02-1503). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the orders are not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The orders here appealed are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.

We dismiss the appeals as interlocutory. 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.