Tigress McDaniel v. VTT Management Inc., No. 17-1841 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1841 TIGRESS SYDNEY ACUTE MCDANIEL, as lawful guardian ad litem of Minor Child A.M., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VTT MANAGEMENT INC.; VTT CHARLOTTE LLC; DEBBIE HICKS; CHRISTOPHER LOEBSACK; LATONYA CAMERON; BRITTANY BANKS; VICTOR JIMENEZ; MECKLENBURG COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT; MARTA CARSON, in her individual and official capacity; BECKY T. TIN, in her individual and official capacity; DONNIE HOOVER, in his individual and official capacity; ELIZABETH THORTON TROSCH, in her individual and official capacity; JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-30, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cv-00826-RJC-DSC) Submitted: December 28, 2017 Decided: January 5, 2018 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tigress Sydney McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se. James Daniel McAlister, MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, LLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Daniel Edward Peterson, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Charlotte, North Carolina; Kathryn Hicks Shields, Assistant Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Tigress Sydney Acute McDaniel seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation and granting some, but not all, Defendants’ motions to dismiss. 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). The order McDaniel seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant Appellees’ motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 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.