# Karen Moore v. Google, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 23, 2014

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2675588

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 23, 2014
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2675588

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1248

KAREN MOORE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GOOGLE, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Bristow Marchant, Magistrate
Judge. (2:13-cv-03034-RMG-BM)

Submitted: April 30, 2014 Decided: May 23, 2014

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Karen Moore, Appellant Pro Se. David Spence Cox, WOMBLE CARLYLE
SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Karen Moore seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s

orders requiring her to bring her case into proper order, and

denying several pretrial motions. This court may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012),

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The orders Moore seeks

to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory

or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for

lack of jurisdiction. We deny Moore’s motion to expedite as

moot. 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2675588. Public record. Not legal advice.