Choice Hotels Intl v. Bennett ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1892
CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, a
Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PATRICK BENNETT, as general partner of Bennett
Financial Associates; BENNETT FINANCIAL
ASSOCIATES, a New York general partnership,
Defendant & Third Party Plaintiff - Appellants,
and
SWEN K. BENNETT; COMFORT ASSOCIATES,
INCORPORATED,
Defendants,
versus
MIDSTATE RACEWAY, INCORPORATED; JOHN J.
SIGNORELLI; DOMINIC GIAMBONA,
Third Party Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-
01-1457-8-DKC)
Submitted: December 9, 2004 Decided: December 14, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patrick Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. James C. Healy, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Appellee. William Willis Carrier, III, Ann Marie
Grillo, TYDINGS & ROSENBERG, Baltimore, Maryland, for Defendants.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Patrick Bennett and Bennett Financial Associates seek to
appeal the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to the
Plaintiff in its civil action and denying Bennett’s motion to alter
or amend judgment. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over
final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory
and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).
Because the orders adjudicated fewer than all claims against all
parties, they are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory
or collateral orders. Accordingly, we grant Appellee’s motion to
dismiss the appeal as interlocutory, deny as moot Appellee’s motion
to strike Bennett’s reply brief, and 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 -