Jarvis v. Grady Management, Incorporated ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-1836
    DEREK JARVIS; SHIRLEY J. PITTMAN,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    v.
    GRADY MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED; DUFFIE, INCORPORATED; APRIL
    LANE JOINT VENURES; MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT/ MONTGOMERY
    COUNTY EXECUTIVE; MONTGOMERY COUNTY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
    AFFAIRS OFFICE; MONTGOMERY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt.     Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
    Judge. (8:09-cv-00280-PJM)
    Submitted:    December 17, 2009             Decided:   December 23, 2009
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Derek Jarvis, Shirley J. Pittman, Appellants Pro Se.      John
    Benjamin Raftery, OFFIT KURMAN, PA, Bethesda, Maryland; Edward
    Barry Lattner, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland,
    for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Derek N. Jarvis seeks to appeal the district court’s
    July 7, 2009, order denying numerous motions filed in Jarvis’ 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2006) action.         On appeal, Jarvis objects from the
    portion of the court’s order denying his motion to recuse the
    district    judge    from   his     case.         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
     (1949).                 The order Jarvis seeks 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-1836

Filed Date: 12/23/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014