Pierre Augustin v. Sectek, Incorporated

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Pierre Augustin v. Sectek, Incorporated

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Reference

Status
Unpublished