Jarvis v. Grady Management, Incorporated ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1451
DEREK N. JARVIS; SHIRLEY J. PITTMAN,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
GRADY MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED; DUFFIE, INCORPORATED; APRIL
LANE JOINT VENURES; MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT/MONTGOMERY
COUNTY EXECUTIVE; MONTGOMERY COUNTY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS OFFICE; MONTGOMERY COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:09-cv-00280-PJM)
No. 10-1550
In Re: DEREK N. JARVIS; SHIRLEY J. PITTMAN,
Petitioners.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:09-cv-00280-PJM)
Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: August 31, 2010
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
No. 10-1451 dismissed; No. 10-1550 petition denied by
unpublished per curiam opinion.
Derek N. Jarvis, Shirley J. Pittman, Appellants/Petitioners Pro
Se. Charles Lowell Frederick, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,
Rockville, Maryland; Edward P. Henneberry, ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
SUTCLIFFE, LLP, Washington, DC; John Benjamin Raftery, OFFIT
KURMAN, PA, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Derek N. Jarvis and Shirley J. Pittman appeal from the
district court’s order, in their civil action, directing them to
file a supplement to their amended complaint that contains a
short, plain statement of facts, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2). Appellants seek to appeal this order. 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, 545-46 (1949). The order
appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Appellants have also filed a petition for writ of
mandamus seeking this court to compel the district court judge
to recuse himself from their proceeding below. Mandamus relief
is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the
relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d
135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy
and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v.
United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re
Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Appellants have not
made such a showing. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ
of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
3
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
No. 10-1451 DISMISSED
No. 10-1550 PETITION DENIED
4