John Stritzinger v. John Stratton ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1806
JOHN S. STRITZINGER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN STRATTON, Verizon Business; CHRISTIANA CARE; JAMES
CLAPPER, NSC; DIANA GOWEN, Centurylink; SUSAN ZELENIAK,
Verizon Gov; JOHN SPEARS, ATT; LOCKHEED MARTIN, PC; NORTHROP
GRUMMAN; JACK GALLANT, U of California Berkeley; TERENCE
MCAULIFFE, Governor Commonwealth of Virginia; SENTARA
HEALTHCARE; JOSEPH BIDEN, Vice President of the United
States; WILMERHALE, Brian Boyton, Verizon Outside Counsel;
JAMES R. STRITZINGER, SR.; JACK MARKELL, Governor of
Delaware; LEWIS; DAVID A. STRITZINGER; PA STATE POLICE;
WILLIAM R. STRITZINGER; MD TRANSIT AUTHORITY; VA STATE
POLICE; LOUIS FREEH; JAMES R. STRITZINGER, JR.; TX STATE
POLICE; VERNON H. C. WRIGHT; FL STATE POLICE; FEDERAL BUREAU
OF INVESTIGATIONS; MD STATE POLICE; DE STATE POLICE; MR.
MILCH,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Paige Jones Gossett, Magistrate
Judge. (3:15-cv-03211-TLW-PJG)
Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016
Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John S. Stritzinger, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
John S. Stritzinger seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s
order denying his motion to reopen his 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). The
order Stritzinger seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor
an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) (2012). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, deny Stritzinger’s pending motions, 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 this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3