Michael Ellis v. Kanawha County Public Library , 684 F. App'x 312 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2244
MICHAEL ELLIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KANAWHA COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
ALAN ENGLEBERT, Director,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (2:15-cv-05698)
Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: April 6, 2017
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Ellis, Appellant Pro Se. Craig W. Snethen, GORDON &
REES, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Ellis seeks to appeal the district court’s order
partially granting the Appellee’s motion to dismiss Ellis’
complaint and referring the matter to a magistrate judge for
consideration of the remaining claim. 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 Ellis seeks
to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave
to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. We deny the Appellee’s motion for sanctions and a
prefiling injunction because Ellis’ litigation does not warrant
sanctions. See, e.g., Foley v. Fix, 106 F.3d 556, 558 (4th Cir.
1997) (sanctioning pro se litigant who filed 23 frivolous
appeals in just over one year); Autry v. Woods, 106 F.3d 61, 63
(4th Cir. 1997) (sanctioning pro se litigant who filed more than
a dozen actions in which he threatened, harassed, or demeaned
women in the criminal justice system). 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