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)
24-6264•Toccara Yvonne Puller v. Arlington County Sheriff’s Office
24-6264Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 24, 2024
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6264
TOCCARA YVONNE PULLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ARLINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; ARLINGTON COUNTY P&P;
MEDIKO; ARLINGTON COUNTY C.P.S.; ARLINGTON COUNTY D.S.S.;
ARLINGTON COUNTY D.H.S.; VIRGINIA HOSPITAL CENTER; P.S.H.;
H.U.D. ARLINGTON COUNTY; PACT PROGRAM; ARLINGTON COUNTY
POLICE DEPARTMENT; CENTRAL STATE HOSPITAL; D.S.K. LAW;
NEWTON TURNER; WILLIAM TURNER; BILL TURNER GAL; UNKNOWN;
DE’ANDRE DAVIS; ARLINGTON COUNTY JDR; ARLINGTON COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Mark R. Colombell, Magistrate Judge. (3:23-cv-00756-JAG-MRC)
Submitted: September 19, 2024 Decided: September 24, 2024
Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Toccara Yvonne Puller, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Toccara Yvonne Puller seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying without
prejudice Puller’s motions for counsel, discovery, and a jury trial. 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 Puller seeks to appeal is neither a final
order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny Puller’s motion for a jury trial. 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.