Faline Arnold v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, No. 23-1779 (4th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1779 FALINE ARNOLD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HUNTINGTON INGALLS INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:22-cv-00384-RBS-DEM) Submitted: November 16, 2023 Decided: November 21, 2023 Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Faline Arnold, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Kerk Reyes, KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Faline Arnold seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting her motion for an extension of time in which to file an amended complaint, as well as her motion to file an amended complaint, but denying Arnold’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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 Arnold seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 964 (4th Cir. 1987) (“Orders denying motions for appointment of counsel are not, prior to final disposition of the case in the district court, ‘final decisions’ of district courts as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 1291 [and] . . . are not within the parameters of the narrow exception to § 1291, articulated in Cohen.”). 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.