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)
22-1140•Shannon Keenan Greene v. City of Virginia Beach
22-1140Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitDec 29, 2023
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1140
SHANNON KEENAN GREENE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge. (2:19-cv-00150-RCY-DEM)
Submitted: December 14, 2023 Decided: December 28, 2023
Before THACKER, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shannon Keenan Greene, Appellant Pro Se. James Arthur Cales, III, FURNISS, DAVIS,
RASHKIND & SAUNDERS, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Shannon Keenan Greene filed three separate lawsuits arising from her former
employment with the City of Virginia Beach (“Defendant”). The district court issued an
order administratively closing two of her cases—including the instant case—and directed
Greene to file an amended complaint in the third action that included all of her claims
against Defendant. Greene seeks to appeal the administrative closure of the instant case.
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 Greene seeks to
appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See
Campbell-McCormick, Inc. v. Oliver, 874 F.3d 390, 394-95 (4th Cir. 2017); Penn-Am. Ins.
Co. v. Mapp, 521 F.3d 290, 295-96 (4th Cir. 2008).
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.