16-1423•Michele Burke Craddock v. LECLAIRRYAN, A Professional Corporation
16-1423Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit26 de ago. de 2016
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1423
MICHELE BURKE CRADDOCK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LECLAIRRYAN, A Professional Corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:16-cv-00011-REP)
Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 26, 2016
Before KING, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harris D. Butler, Paul Mark Falabella, BUTLER ROYALS, PLC,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. John Michael Bredehoft,
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Norfolk, Virginia; Randy Carl Sparks,
Jr., KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Michelle Burke Craddock seeks to appeal the district
court’s order directing arbitration in her Title VII action.
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). Upon review of the district court’s order, we
conclude that the order stayed the district court proceedings
pending arbitration of Craddock’s Title VII action.
Consequently, the order is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See 9 U.S.C.
§ 16(b)(1), (2) (2012). 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 this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.