GEAN v. CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION EEOC (2019)

In these consolidated appeals, Thomasina Cofield Gean seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation filed in both of her civil actions. 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 filings Gean seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.^* Accordingly, we dismiss these 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.

DISMISSED

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   Although the district court subsequently adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations and dismissed Gean’s complaints before we considered these appeals, the doctrine of cumulative finality does not cure the jurisdictional defects. See Houck v. Substitute Tr. Servs., Inc., 791 F.3d 473, 479 (4th Cir. 2015) (“The doctrine [of cumulative finality] applies ․ only when the appellant appeals from an order that the district court could have certified for immediate appeal under [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 54(b).”); In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 288 (4th Cir. 2005) (noting that “a premature notice of appeal from a clearly interlocutory decision” cannot “serve as a notice of appeal from the final judgment” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.