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)
22-1640•Kathy Juanita Reaves, a/k/a Kathy Reaves v. KATHRYN M. CREWS, Individually
22-1640Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 20, 2022
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1640
KATHY JUANITA REAVES, a/k/a Kathy Reaves,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KATHRYN M. CREWS, Individually and Professionally; CATHY HAZELWOOD,
Individually and Professionally; STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge; Thomas E. Rogers, III, Magistrate
Judge. (3:22-cv-00732-TLW)
Submitted: October 18, 2022 Decided: October 20, 2022
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kathy Juanita Reaves, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayne Hodges, III, Lillian Marshall
Coleman Newton, GIGNILLIAT, SAVITZ & BETTIS LLP, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Kathy Juanita Reaves seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s text order, in which the
magistrate judge noted that, as a pro se party, Reaves was not permitted to file documents
with the court electronically. 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 Reaves seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. 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.