Jerome Want v. Steven Frei , 686 F. App'x 159 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1148
JEROME WANT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STEVEN MARK FREI, Attorney; SICKLES, FREI & MIMS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Ivan Darnell Davis, Magistrate Judge. (1:16-cv-00660-LMB-IDD)
Submitted: April 20, 2017 Decided: April 25, 2017
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerome Want, Appellant Pro Se. Laurie Kirkland, BLANKINGSHIP & KEITH, PC,
Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerome Want seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion to
compel one of the defendants to answer interrogatories. After Want filed his notice of
appeal, the district court granted summary judgment and closed the case.
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). When a notice
of appeal is premature, the entry of final judgment can cure the resulting jurisdictional
defect under the doctrine of cumulative finality but only if the order being appealed could
have been certified for intermediate appeal under Rule 54(b). In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284,
287-89 (4th Cir. 2005); Equip. Fin. Grp. v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347
(4th Cir. 1992).
The order Want seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. Further, because the district court could not have certified
for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b) the order denying Want’s motion to compel, the
cumulative finality doctrine does not apply. 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
2