Torrie Johnson v. Baltimore City Police Dep't, No. 13-1652 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1652 TORRIE JOHNSON, Plaintiff Appellant, v. BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; FREDERICK BEALEFELD, Police Commissioner Individually and as Police Commissioner of the Baltimore City Police Department; ADAM LONG, Police Officer, Sequence #F648 Individually and as a Police Officer of the Baltimore City Police Department; BERNARD TAYLOR, Police Officer, Sequence #1635 Individually and as a Police Officer of the Baltimore City Police Department; JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10, Individually and as Currently Unknown Police Officers of the Baltimore City Police Department; RICHARD AND JANE ROES 1-10, Individually and as Currently Unknown Supervisors of the Baltimore City Police Department; LYNETTE MORTON, Parking Control Agent Baltimore City Department of Transportation; LINDA MCCLELAN, Parking Control Agent Baltimore City Department of Transportation; JAMES DOE, Director, Individually and as Currently Unknown Director(on May 1, 2010) of Baltimore City Department of Transportation; MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:12-cv-00646-WDQ) Submitted: July 25, 2013 Decided: July 29, 2013 Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Torrie Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Constantine Sakles, BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Towson, Maryland; Danielle Grilli Marcus, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, LLP, Thurman Wilbert Zollicoffer, Jr., City Solicitor, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Torrie Johnson seeks to appeal the district court s order denying Johnson s motions to appoint counsel, to extend the time to file her amended complaint, to strike the answer, to file a surreply to the answer, and to modify the scheduling order. the The Appellees McLean and Morton have moved to dismiss appeal. 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. 545-46 (1949). Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, The order Johnson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant Appelees motion and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. counsel. legal before We deny Johnson s motion to appoint We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 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.
