Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Karagiannopoulos v. City of Lowell, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views2 pages
    This document summarizes an unpublished court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court dismissed an appeal from Aura LaBro Karagiannopoulos seeking to appeal a district court's denial of her motion for a default judgment. The appeals court found it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final order or an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, as is required. The appeals court therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-06-14 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-2214

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes an unpublished court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court dismissed an appeal from Aura LaBro Karagiannopoulos seeking to appeal a district court's denial of her motion for a default judgment. The appeals court found it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final order or an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, as is required. The appeals court therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    11 views2 pages

    Karagiannopoulos v. City of Lowell, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes an unpublished court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court dismissed an appeal from Aura LaBro Karagiannopoulos seeking to appeal a district court's denial of her motion for a default judgment. The appeals court found it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final order or an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, as is required. The appeals court therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 06-2214

    AURA LABRO KARAGIANNOPOULOS,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    CITY OF LOWELL,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
    Frank D. Whitney,
    District Judge. (3:05-cv-00401)

    Submitted:

    January 10, 2007

    Decided:

    June 14, 2007

    Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Aura LaBro Karagiannopoulos, Appellant Pro Se.


    Martha Raymond
    Thompson, STOTT, HOLLOWELL, PALMER & WINDHAM, Gastonia, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Aura LaBro Karagiannopoulos seeks to appeal the district
    courts order denying her motion for a default judgment.

    This

    court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.


    1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28
    U.S.C. 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial
    Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Karagiannopoulos
    seeks

    to

    appeal

    is

    neither

    final

    interlocutory or collateral order.


    Robertson-CECO

    Corp.,

    10

    F.3d

    order

    nor

    an

    appealable

    See Harvey Const. Co. v.

    300,

    304

    (5th

    Cir.

    1994).

    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 -

    You might also like