USCA4 Appeal: 22-1452 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/12/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1452

THERESA M. YOUNG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARY SEYMOUR; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:22-cv-00241-DKC)

Submitted: September 8, 2022 Decided: September 12, 2022

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theresa M. Young, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1452 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/12/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Theresa M. Young filed a notice of appeal in the underlying civil action after the district court granted the motion to substitute the United States as the Defendant. Although Young does not identify which order she seeks to appeal, this court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). None of the orders issued in the district court proceedings thus far qualify as a final order or an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Maron v. United States, 126 F.3d 317, 321 n.4 (4th Cir. 1997); cf. U.S. Tobacco Coop. Inc. v. Big S. Wholesale of Va., LLC, 899 F.3d 236, 247 n.3 (4th Cir. 2018) (“Unlike in the case of an order granting Westfall immunity, an order that conclusively denies a federal employee’s request for substitution of the United States as defendant under the Westfall Act . . . is appealable under the collateral order doctrine because it is essentially a denial of a claim of absolute immunity.” (cleaned up)).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Young’s motion to seal. 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