Teresa MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Judge Phillip Douglas GAUJOT, Monongalia County Circuit Court Judge; Steven Fitz; Edward Rollo; Michael Pennington; Deandra Burton; Ashley Hunt; Michael Pamer; Robert W. Trumble, United States District Court; West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals; Circuit Court of Monongalia County; Judge Summers; William Pennington; United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia; United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Defendants-Appellees.
Teresa Miller, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Phillip D. Gaujot; Edmund Rollo; Stephen Fitiz; Ms. Dechristopher; Lesa Reidman/Barret; Lance Kurtza; West Virginia Parole Board, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-1672, No. 18-6690
Decided: November 07, 2018
Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Teresa Miller, Appellant Pro Se.
In these consolidated appeals, Teresa Miller seeks to appeal the district court's order overruling her objections to the magistrate judge's rulings on her motions to transfer, for a change of venue, to amend her complaint, to admit additional evidence, and for a jury trial in her civil actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).1 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Miller seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.2 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals 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.
1. Although this court has been named as a defendant-appellee in appeal No. 18-1672, we exercise our discretion to decide the appeal pursuant to the Rule of Necessity. United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 211-17, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980).
2. Insofar as Miller seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's pretrial orders ruling on these nondispositive issues, we also lack jurisdiction to consider her appeals of those interlocutory orders.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.