Shannon Greene v. City of Virginia Beach, No. 22-1140 (4th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-1140 SHANNON KEENAN GREENE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge. (2:19-cv-00150-RCY-DEM) Submitted: December 14, 2023 Decided: December 28, 2023 Before THACKER, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shannon Keenan Greene, Appellant Pro Se. James Arthur Cales, III, FURNISS, DAVIS, RASHKIND & SAUNDERS, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shannon Keenan Greene filed three separate lawsuits arising from her former employment with the City of Virginia Beach (“Defendant”). The district court issued an order administratively closing two of her cases—including the instant case—and directed Greene to file an amended complaint in the third action that included all of her claims against Defendant. Greene seeks to appeal the administrative closure of the instant case. 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). The order Greene seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Campbell-McCormick, Inc. v. Oliver, 874 F.3d 390, 394-95 (4th Cir. 2017); Penn-Am. Ins. Co. v. Mapp, 521 F.3d 290, 295-96 (4th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we 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 2

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.