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)
12-1606•George Mason University Foundation, Inc. v. Thomas W. Morris, in his individual capacity; SHARON DUNCAN, in her individual capacity
12-1606Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 1, 2012
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1606
GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION, INC.,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THOMAS W. MORRIS, in his individual capacity; SHARON DUNCAN,
in her individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:11-cv-00848-JRS)
Submitted: September 27, 2012 Decided: October 1, 2012
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas W. Morris, Sharon Duncan, Appellants Pro Se. Richard J.
Cromwell, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Norfolk, Virginia; Dana Gene
Fitzsimons, Jr., MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Thomas W. Morris and Sharon Duncan seek to appeal the
district court’s order denying their motion to dismiss the
complaint or, in the alternative, to transfer venue. This court
may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,
28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The
order Morris and Duncan seek to appeal is neither a final order
nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we 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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.