Wanda Allen v. City of Raleigh Police Department, No. 22-1361 (4th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-1361 WANDA M. ALLEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF RALEIGH POLICE DEPARTMENT; CAPTAIN MURR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:21-cv-00471-M) Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: December 22, 2022 Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wanda M. Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Jordan Simmons, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Wanda M. Allen has filed two notices of appeal in her pending civil action. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Allen fails to identify the order from which she seeks to appeal. ∗ See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B) (“The notice of appeal must . . . designate the judgment—or the appealable order—from which the appeal is taken.”). Moreover, the district court has not yet entered any final or immediately appealable interlocutory or collateral order in Allen’s civil case. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Allen’s motions for appointment of counsel and to transfer the appeal. 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 Insofar as Allen’s informal brief could be liberally construed as seeking to appeal the district court’s January 10, 2022, order granting Defendants’ motion for extension of time to answer or otherwise plead in response to Allen’s complaint, that order is not a final order or an immediately appealable interlocutory or collateral order. ∗ 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.