Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Darek J. KITLINSKI; Lisa M. Kitlinski, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Drug Enforcement Administration As to Privacy Act Claims; Other Unnamed Employees of the U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration and Office of the Inspector General; Matthew G. Whitaker, Acting Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Defendants - Appellees, Loretta Lynch, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; Jose Fernando Ramon, Special Agent, Office of Professional Responsibility, Drug Enforcement Administration; Donna A. Rodriguez, a/k/a Donna Ashe Section Chief, Research and Analysis Staff of the Human Resources Division Drug Enforcement Administration, Defendants.
Darek J. Kitlinski and Lisa M. Kitlinski appeal the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Office of the Inspector General, and others. 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. § 1291 (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). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not rule on the Kitlinskis’ wrongful termination claims. Thus, the district court's order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696-97 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court so that the court can consider the wrongful termination claims. 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 AND REMANDED
PER CURIAM:
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Docket No: No. 18-1023
Decided: January 28, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)