Cornelius v. Columbia, City of ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2258
MICHAEL CORNELIUS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
COLUMBIA, CITY OF, South Carolina,
Defendant – Appellee.
No. 09-2264
MICHAEL CORNELIUS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
COLUMBIA, CITY OF, Columbia, SC,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cv-02508-MJP-PJG; 3:06-cv-03215-MJP)
Submitted: September 14, 2010 Decided: October 29, 2010
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
No. 09-2258 dismissed; No. 09-2264 affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Michael Cornelius, Appellant Pro Se. William Allen Nickles,
III, Carl Lewis Solomon, GERGEL, NICKLES & SOLOMON, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Michael Cornelius seeks
to appeal the district court’s September 28, 2009 order granting
in part Defendant’s motion to strike (No. 09-2258) and appeals
the court’s September 30, 2009 order adopting the recommendation
of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to
Defendant in Cornelius’s civil action alleging age
discrimination (No. 09-2264).
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, 545-
47 (1949). The September 28 order is neither a final order nor
an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We therefore
dismiss the appeal in No. 09-2258 for lack of jurisdiction and
deny Cornelius’s pending motion for a transcript at government
expense.
In No. 09-2264, we have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. Cornelius v. City of Columbia,
No. 3:06-cv-03215-MJP (D.S.C. filed Sept. 29, 2009; entered
Oct. 1, 2009). We deny the pending motion for a transcript at
government expense.
3
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.
No. 09-2258 DISMISSED
No. 09-2264 AFFIRMED
4