Theresa M. Young v. Mary Seymour; United States of America

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1452
THERESA M. YOUNG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARY SEYMOUR; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:22-cv-00241-DKC)
Submitted: September 8, 2022 Decided: September 12, 2022
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Theresa M. Young, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Theresa M. Young filed a notice of appeal in the underlying civil action after the
district court granted the motion to substitute the United States as the Defendant. Although
Young does not identify which order she seeks to appeal, 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). None of the orders issued in the district court
proceedings thus far qualify as a final order or an appealable interlocutory or collateral
order. See Maron v. United States, 126 F.3d 317, 321 n.4 (4th Cir. 1997); cf. U.S. Tobacco
Coop. Inc. v. Big S. Wholesale of Va., LLC, 899 F.3d 236, 247 n.3 (4th Cir. 2018) (“Unlike
in the case of an order granting Westfall immunity, an order that conclusively denies a
federal employee’s request for substitution of the United States as defendant under the
Westfall Act . . . is appealable under the collateral order doctrine because it is essentially a
denial of a claim of absolute immunity.” (cleaned up)).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Young’s
motion to seal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --