Carol Pizzuto v. Scott Smith, No. 13-1887 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1887 CAROL L. GRAY PIZZUTO, Plaintiff Appellant, v. SCOTT R. SMITH; KEITH C. GAMBLE; STEPHEN M. FOWLER; D. LUKE FURBEE; OFFICER D. L. ROBINSON; HONORABLE JAMES P. MAZZONE; HONORABLE ARTHUR M. RECHT; HONORABLE RONALD E. WILSON; KENNETH W. BLAKE; JULIE L. KREEFER; TONI VANCAMP, individually and collectively, Defendants Appellees, and OFFICER S. A. ZIMMERMAN, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:12-cv-00149-FPS-JES) Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013 Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carol L. Pizzuto, Appellant Pro Se. Diane G. Senakievich, David Lee Wyant, BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia; Stephen Mark Fowler, Kenneth Louis Hopper, Keith C. Gamble, PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia; Deva A. Solomon, Monte Lee Williams, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP, Morgantown, West Virginia; John Michael Hedges, Teresa Jean Lyons, HEDGES LYONS & SHEPHERD, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Carol. L. Gray Pizzuto seeks to appeal the district court s order adopting magistrate judge. over final the report and recommendation of the This court may exercise jurisdiction only 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). is neither a final collateral order. order The order Pizzuto seeks to appeal nor an appealable interlocutory Accordingly, we deny Pizzuto s motion for a transcript and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. dispense with contentions are or 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 3