Tigress McDaniel v. Green Dot Corporation

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1100
TIGRESS MCDANIEL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GREEN DOT CORPORATION; GREEN DOT BANK; FINGERHUT; EXPERIAN
DATA CORP.; EXPERIAN SERVICES CORP.; TRANSUNION DATA
SOLUTIONS LLC; TRANSUNION LLC; WEBBANK,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
BLUESTEM SALES, INC.,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:23-cv-00406-D-RN)
Submitted: May 21, 2024 Decided: May 24, 2024
Before WYNN and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Tigress Sydney Acute McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se. Kristen Peters Watson, BURR &
FORMAN, LLP, Birmingham, Alabama; Jonathan Harold Todt, FAEGRE DRINKER
BIDDLE & REATH, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Caren D. Enloe, SMITH DEBNAM
NARRON DRAKE SAINTSING & MYERS, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Camille R.
Nicodemus, QUILLING SELANDER LOWNDS WINSLETT MOSER, Indianapolis,
Indiana; Robert Cowan deRosset, IV, Christy Cochran Dunn, YOUNG MOORE &
HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Tigress McDaniel seeks to appeal the district court’s order (a) denying McDaniel’s
motions to amend her pro se complaint; (b) granting the motions to dismiss filed by all but
one of the named Defendants and dismissing those claims with prejudice; and (c) directing
McDaniel to show cause why the lone remaining Defendant, Bluestem Sales, Inc., should
not be dismissed from the action. 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 that McDaniel seeks to appeal is neither a final order, given that litigation on her
remaining claims is ongoing, nor is it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we dismiss this 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

-- 3 of 3 --