Glenn Myer v. Uriah Kennedy ( 2018 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1792
GLENN MYER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
URIAH KENNEDY; GENTOX MEDICAL SERVICES; CHRIS SEYMOUR,
individual and official capacities, Regional Manager; MATT RIDDLE, individual
and official capacities, Director of Distributors; I. L. PALENCIA, O.F.C.,
individual and official capacities; TAJWEER BEAUFORT, PFC, individual and
official capacities; MIKE PORTER, SGT, individual and official capacities;
FAIRFAX COUNTY; FAIRFAX COUNTY GOVERNMENT, Sharon Bulova
Governing Fairfax; CELLING BIOSCIENCES,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:18-cv-00547-AJT-TCB)
Submitted: November 29, 2018 Decided: December 3, 2018
Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Glenn Myer, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Earl Barnsback, O’HAGAN MEYER PLLC,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees Matthew Riddle and Celling Biosciences Uriah
Kennedy, Appellee Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Glenn Myer seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Matt Riddle’s and
Celling Biosciences’ motions to dismiss claims in Myer’s amended civil complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 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). Because claims against several
defendants remain pending below and the district court did not certify the order for
immediate appeal, the order Myer 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 this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3