Yolanda Bell v. US, No. 19-1711 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1711 YOLANDA Y. BELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. Attorney General; CHAD A. READLER; MARK T. ESPER, Secretary of Defense; in his official capacity; HARTICHEK, Admiral; MICHAEL SIMON, III, Former Program Manager of the Defense Travel Office, Defense Logistics Agency; in his official and individual capacity; DAVIS MCLEMORE, Former Deputy Program Manager of the Defense Travel office, Defense Logistics Agency; in his official and individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00469-LO-IDD) Submitted: November 19, 2019 Decided: November 22, 2019 Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yolanda Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Yolanda Bell seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order granting in part and denying in part her Request for Medical Reasonable Accommodation and the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part her Motion for Continuance. 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 orders Bell seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. 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.
