Jarvis v. Enterprise Fleet Services & Leasing Co.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1278
DEREK JARVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ENTERPRISE FLEET SERVICES AND LEASING COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-1675
DEREK JARVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ENTERPRISE FLEET SERVICES AND LEASING COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-1681
DEREK JARVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ENTERPRISE FLEET SERVICES AND LEASING COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-1718
DEREK JARVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ENTERPRISE FLEET SERVICES AND LEASING COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge;
Charles B. Day, Magistrate Judge. (8:07-cv-03385-DKC)
Submitted: July 30, 2009 Decided: August 4, 2009
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Derek Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Lee Isler, ISLER, DARE,
RAY, RADCLIFFE & CONNOLLY, PC, Vienna, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Derek Jarvis seeks to appeal various orders in civil
action: the denial of his motion to compel discovery, the denial
of his motion for stay, the denial of his motion to recuse the
district judge, and the order granting Defendant’s motion to
compel discovery. 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 (1949). The orders Jarvis seeks to appeal are
neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral
orders. Accordingly, we grant Appellee’s motion to dismiss the
appeal as this Court lacks jurisdiction. We also deny Jarvis’
motion for default judgment and for stay pending appeal and
Appellee’s motion for sanctions and motion for an extension of
time to respond to Jarvis’ motion for default judgment. 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