Carol Pizzuto v. Scott Smith

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Carol Pizzuto v. Scott Smith

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1887

CAROL L. GRAY PIZZUTO,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

SCOTT R. SMITH; KEITH C. GAMBLE; STEPHEN M. FOWLER; D. LUKE FURBEE; OFFICER D. L. ROBINSON; HONORABLE JAMES P. MAZZONE; HONORABLE ARTHUR M. RECHT; HONORABLE RONALD E. WILSON; KENNETH W. BLAKE; JULIE L. KREEFER; TONI VANCAMP, individually and collectively,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

OFFICER S. A. ZIMMERMAN,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:12-cv-00149-FPS-JES)

Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carol L. Pizzuto, Appellant Pro Se. Diane G. Senakievich, David Lee Wyant, BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia; Stephen Mark Fowler, Kenneth Louis Hopper, Keith C. Gamble, PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia; Deva A. Solomon, Monte Lee Williams, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP, Morgantown, West Virginia; John Michael Hedges, Teresa Jean Lyons, HEDGES LYONS & SHEPHERD, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Carol. L. Gray Pizzuto seeks to appeal the district

court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the

magistrate judge. 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 Pizzuto seeks to appeal

is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or

collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Pizzuto’s motion for a

transcript and 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

3

Reference

Status
Unpublished