Hinton v. Lanham Ford Motor Co, No. 06-2074 (4th Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2074 DESHANTA HINTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LANHAM FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee, and JOHN DOE, JR., Motor Company; the FBI; KAREN FBI; UNKNOWN DEPARTMENT OF Investigation, General Manager, Lanham Ford PAUL TIMKO, Special Agent for NESTER, Special Agent for the FBI AGENTS; UNITED STATES JUSTICE, Federal Bureau of Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:05-cv-02425-AW) Submitted: August 13, 2007 Decided: August 21, 2007 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. DeShanta Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. John Paul Lynch, Charles Henry Henderson, MCNAMEE, HOSEA, JERNIGAN, KIM, GREENAN & WALKER, PA, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: DeShanta Hinton seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing certain defendants in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) suit. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). In this case, claims remain pending in the district court against several other defendants. The order Hinton seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Baird v. Palmer, 114 F.3d 39, 42 (4th Cir.1997). See Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 3 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.