Jarvis v. Enterprise Fleet Services ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-1835
    DEREK JARVIS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    ENTERPRISE FLEET SERVICES AND LEASING COMPANY,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    No. 09-1953
    DEREK JARVIS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    ENTERPRISE FLEET SERVICES AND LEASING COMPANY,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
    of Maryland, at Greenbelt.   Charles B. Day, Magistrate Judge.
    (8:07-cv-03385-DKC)
    Submitted:    December 17, 2009            Decided:   December 23, 2009
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Derek Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se.    Edward Lee Isler, Michelle
    Bodley Radcliffe, ISLER, DARE, RAY, RADCLIFFE & CONNOLLY, PC,
    Vienna, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Derek       Jarvis    seeks       to     appeal    the   district      court’s
    paperless orders denying his motions to stay and to recuse the
    magistrate         judge      and        the    district     court’s      order      granting
    Defendant’s motion for sanctions related to Defendant’s motion
    to compel discovery.                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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-1835

Filed Date: 12/23/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014