# Meadows v. Charles County School Board of Education

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · August 21, 2017 · 696 F. App'x 105

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4197620

## Case

- **Full name:** Debra F. MEADOWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARLES COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION; Keller III Bus Service Incorporated, Keller Jr. Owner/President of School Board; Helen E. Keller, Owner; Keller Transportation Inc., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 21, 2017
- **Citations:** 696 F. App'x 105
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Keenan, Thacker, Harris
- **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/4197620

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1586

DEBRA F. MEADOWS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CHARLES COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION; KELLER III BUS
SERVICE INCORPORATED, Keller Jr. Owner/President of School Board;
HELEN E. KELLER, Owner; KELLER TRANSPORTATION INC.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Timothy J. Sullivan, Magistrate Judge. (8:16-cv-02897-DKC)

Submitted: August 17, 2017 Decided: August 21, 2017

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Debra F. Meadows, Appellant Pro Se. Edmund J. O’Meally, PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A.,
Towson, Maryland; Mark Jay Swerdlin, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL, LLP, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

On May 1, 2017, Debra F. Meadows filed a notice of appeal in her pending civil

case that did not clearly state the order she sought to appeal. In her informal brief,

Meadows references the magistrate judge’s January 25, 2017, order denying her motion

for a protective order. 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 order Meadows seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Meadows’ motion for oral

argument and 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4197620. Public record. Not legal advice.