U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2009

Perry-Bey v. City of Norfolk

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided October 14, 2009 · Michael, Motz, Niemeyer

333 F. App'x 733

Counsel

Christina D. Perry-Bey, Appellant. Pro Se. Paul Wilbur Jacobs, II, Christian & Barton, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, Melvin Wayne Ringer, City Attorney’s Office, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Perry-Bey v. City of Norfolk, Va. (District Court, E.D. Virginia 2010)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christina D. Perry-Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her complaint without prejudice. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Perry-Bey seeks to *734appeal is neither a final order nor an ap-pealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir. 1993). 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.

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