Felicia Sprincenatu Pfouts v. Measurement Incorporated

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1030
FELICIA SPRINCENATU PFOUTS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MEASUREMENT INCORPORATED,
Defendant – Appellee.
No. 11-1367
FELICIA SPRINCENATU PFOUTS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MEASUREMENT INCORPORATED,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cv-00846-WO-LPA)
Submitted: June 9, 2011 Decided: June 28, 2011
Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Felicia Sprincenatu Pfouts, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Palmieri,
K&L GATES LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Felicia Sprincenatu
Pfouts seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying her
motion for review of the settlement agreement (No. 11-1030) and
the court’s judgment dismissing her employment discrimination
action (No. 11-1367). We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
With regard to the order in No. 11-1030, 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 Pfouts seeks
to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory
or collateral order. See In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 287-89 (4th Cir.
2005). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in No. 11-1030 for lack
of jurisdiction.
Turning to Pfouts’s appeal of the district court’s final
judgment, we have reviewed the record and find no error in the
district court’s dismissal of the action. Accordingly, we affirm
the order in No. 11-1367 for the reasons stated by the court.
Pfouts v. Measurement Inc., No. 1:09-cv-00846-WO-LPA (M.D.N.C.
Mar. 15, 2011). 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 IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --