Faline Arnold v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1779
FALINE ARNOLD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HUNTINGTON INGALLS INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:22-cv-00384-RBS-DEM)
Submitted: November 16, 2023 Decided: November 21, 2023
Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Faline Arnold, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Kerk Reyes, KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Faline Arnold seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting her motion for an
extension of time in which to file an amended complaint, as well as her motion to file an
amended complaint, but denying Arnold’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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). The order Arnold seeks to appeal is neither a
final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Miller v. Simmons, 814
F.2d 962, 964 (4th Cir. 1987) (“Orders denying motions for appointment of counsel are
not, prior to final disposition of the case in the district court, ‘final decisions’ of district
courts as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 1291 [and] . . . are not within the parameters of the
narrow exception to § 1291, articulated in Cohen.”). Accordingly, we 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

-- 2 of 2 --