Tessie Casey v. Plastic Omnium Auto Exterior LLC, No. 13-1183 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1183 TESSIE THERESSA CASEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PLASTIC OMNIUM AUTO EXTERIOR LLC, Defendant - Appellee, and KAREN BEASLEY; DAVID HUNTER; GREG LEWIS; RICK WALLACE, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:11-cv-01432-HMH) Submitted: June 18, 2013 Decided: July 15, 2013 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tessie Theressa Casey, Appellant Pro Se. John Timothy Merrell, Madison Baker Wyche, III, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tessie court s order Theressa accepting Casey the seeks to appeal recommendation of the the district magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of Plastic Omnium Auto Exterior discrimination LLC ( Plastic claims. Omnium ) This court on may Casey s exercise employment 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). neither a final collateral order. order The order Casey seeks to appeal is nor an appealable interlocutory or Specifically, the district court s order did not resolve all claims between the parties; Plastic Omnium s counterclaims are still pending in the district court. Further, the district court did not expressly certify its order as final pursuant to Rule 54(b). See MCI Constructors, LLC v. City of Greensboro, 610 F.3d 849, 855 (4th Cir. 2010) (describing twopart showing required for Rule 54(b) certification). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal 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.