Dorarena Boyd v. Robert Murray, No. 15-1979 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1979 DORARENA BOYD, et al., Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ROBERT MURRAY; BEVERLY BROWN; CHARLOTTE MAULL; SHEPHERD VILLAGE; FIRST BAPTIST BUTE STREET; REGIONAL LICENSE; DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; GLENDA AMES, Regional Office; SUE MYATT; DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, Division of Building Safety; HEALTH DEPARTMENT; VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION; MICHAEL EUGENE PLUMMER; MIRCLE TABERNACLE FAMILY CENTER; TASTE N SEE; CONFERENCE CENTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:15-cv-00329-AWA-DEM) Submitted: January 21, 2016 Decided: January 27, 2016 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dorarena Boyd, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dorarena Boyd seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her civil action without prejudice. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Boyd seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015). 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.