Pierre Augustin v. Sectek, Incorporated, No. 11-1980 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1980 PIERRE RICHARD AUGUSTIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SECTEK, INCORPORATED; SECTEK PROTECTIVE SERVICES; WILFRED D. BLOOD; MICHELLE FOWLER; FREDERICK SPRINGFIELD; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SPECIAL POLICE AND SECURITY OFFICERS, (NASPSO); CALEB BURRISS; JOHN DOE, Individuals yet to be determined, if any, also involved in the making of materially false statement and fraud as involved in this case; JANE DOE, Individuals yet to be determined, if any, also involved in the making of materially false statement and fraud as involved in this case, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-00490-CMH-IDD) Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pierre Richard Augustin, Appellant Pro Se. Steven William Ray, ISLER, DARE, RAY, RADCLIFFE & CONNOLLY, PC, Vienna, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Pierre Richard Augustin seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his claims against some but not all of the defendants named in his suit. 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., Augustin 337 seeks U.S. to 541, appeal 545-46 is (1949). neither a final appealable interlocutory or collateral order. dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials The legal before order order that nor an Accordingly, we We dispense with contentions the court are 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.