LAW.coLAW.co

Josephat MUA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY/Prince Georges County Public Schools; Verjeana M. Jacobs, Individually and as Board Chairperson of Prince Georges Public Schools; Dr. William R. Hite, Jr., Individually and as superintendent; Roger C. Thomas, Esquire; Synthia J. Shilling; Monica Goldson, Individually and as Associate superintendent of Prince Georges Public Schools; Pierre Dickson, Individually and as agent of the Board of Education of Prince Georges County; Dr. Kevin Maxwell, Individually and as superintendent of Prince Georges Public Schools; Dr. Alvin L. Crawley, Individually and as superintendent; Robert J. Gaskin, Individually and Chief Human Resources of Prince Georges Public Schools; Dr. Lillian M. Lowery; Ardra ONeal; Abbey Hairston, Defendants-Appellees, and American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME; Association of Classified Employees American Federation of State, County, Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFSCME Local 2250, Defendants

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit2016-06-21No. No. 15-2363
667 F. App'x 27

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Josephat Mua seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing Mua’s case based on Mua’s failure to file an amended complaint against the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and AFSCME Local 2250; dismissing, without prejudice, Mua’s claims against the remaining Defendants; and granting, in part, Mua’s motion for reconsideration. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The orders Mua seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Moreover, Mua may challenge the district court’s orders in Appeal No. 16-1509. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny as moot Mua’s motion for leave to file an amended initial brief and his motion to consolidate this appeal with Appeal No. 16-1509. 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