Felicia Pfouts v. Measurement Incorporated, No. 11-1030 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1030 FELICIA SPRINCENATU PFOUTS, Plaintiff Appellant, v. MEASUREMENT INCORPORATED, Defendant Appellee. No. 11-1367 FELICIA SPRINCENATU PFOUTS, Plaintiff Appellant, v. MEASUREMENT INCORPORATED, Defendant Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cv-00846-WO-LPA) Submitted: June 9, 2011 Before KEENAN Circuit Judge. and DIAZ, Decided: Circuit Judges, and June 28, 2011 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed opinion. in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam Felicia Sprincenatu Pfouts, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Palmieri, K&L GATES LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In Pfouts seeks these to consolidated appeal the appeals, district Felicia court s order Sprincenatu denying her motion for review of the settlement agreement (No. 11-1030) and the court s judgment action (No. 11-1367). dismissing her employment discrimination We affirm in part and dismiss in part. With regard to the order in No. 11-1030, 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). The order Pfouts seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 2005). See In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 287-89 (4th Cir. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in No. 11-1030 for lack of jurisdiction. Turning to Pfouts s appeal of the district court s final judgment, we have reviewed the record and find no error in the district court s dismissal of the action. Accordingly, we affirm the order in No. 11-1367 for the reasons stated by the court. Pfouts v. Measurement Mar. 15, 2011). Inc., No. 1:09-cv-00846-WO-LPA (M.D.N.C. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 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.
