The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
21-6744•Kenneth Lee Sheppard v. CLAIBORNE, Food Service Supervisor, in their individual
21-6744Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 6, 2022
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6744
KENNETH LEE SHEPPARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CLAIBORNE, Food Service Supervisor, in their individual and official capacity;
DOES 1-8, in their individual and official capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (3:21-cv-00047-MR)
Submitted: November 9, 2021 Decided: January 6, 2022
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Lee Sheppard, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Lee Sheppard seeks to appeal the district court’s order transferring his case
from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. 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 Sheppard seeks to appeal is neither a final
order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See In re Carefirst of Md., Inc.,
305 F.3d 253, 255-56 (4th Cir. 2002); see also Williamson v. Stirling, 912 F.3d 154, 170
(4th Cir. 2018) (discussing “cumulative finality” doctrine). 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.