Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Tanya Cetina v. Michelin North America, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    37 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Tanya Lynn Cetina for lack of jurisdiction. Cetina sought to appeal district court orders dismissing her claims against two defendants, but her claims against other defendants remained pending. The appeals court found it did not have jurisdiction over the non-final orders and dismissed the appeal, as appellate jurisdiction is generally limited to final orders disposing of all claims for all parties.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-09-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-1864

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Tanya Lynn Cetina for lack of jurisdiction. Cetina sought to appeal district court orders dismissing her claims against two defendants, but her claims against other defendants remained pending. The appeals court found it did not have jurisdiction over the non-final orders and dismissed the appeal, as appellate jurisdiction is generally limited to final orders disposing of all claims for all parties.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    37 views3 pages

    Tanya Cetina v. Michelin North America, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Tanya Lynn Cetina for lack of jurisdiction. Cetina sought to appeal district court orders dismissing her claims against two defendants, but her claims against other defendants remained pending. The appeals court found it did not have jurisdiction over the non-final orders and dismissed the appeal, as appellate jurisdiction is generally limited to final orders disposing of all claims for all parties.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 13-1864

    TANYA LYNN CETINA,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA; NEWBOLD SERVICES; CLINT MORGAN; DAVE
    MURPHY; DAVE BROWN; DAVE MAUGER,
    Defendants Appellees,
    and

    SANDRA CHAVEZ,
    Defendant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
    (6:12-cv-02222-TMC-JDA)

    Submitted:

    September 24, 2013

    Before NIEMEYER and


    Senior Circuit Judge.

    THACKER,

    Decided:

    Circuit

    September 26, 2013

    Judges,

    and

    HAMILTON,

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Tanya Lynn Cetina, Appellant Pro Se. Collie William Lehn, Jr.,
    Fred W. Suggs, Jr., OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART,
    PC, Greenville, South Carolina; Sima Bhakta Patel, Thomas Louis

    Stephenson,
    Appellees.

    NEXSEN

    PRUET,

    Greenville,

    South

    Carolina,

    for

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Tanya Lynn Cetina seeks to appeal the district courts
    orders adopting the magistrate judges recommendation to dismiss
    her claims against Defendants Dave Mauger and Michelin North
    America,

    Incorporated.

    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).
    several

    other

    Defendants

    Because Cetinas claims against

    remain,

    the

    orders

    Cetina

    seeks

    to

    appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or


    collateral orders.

    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack

    of jurisdiction.
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the


    contentions

    are

    adequately

    this

    and

    argument

    court

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like