Coats v. Kiehart

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2265
LORENZO W. COATS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DANIEL P. KIEHART; MICHAEL P. SHEETZ; DUKE
UNIVERSITY, Incorporated; ROBERT WINFREE,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 95-2723
LORENZO W. COATS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DANIEL P. KIEHART; MICHAEL P. SHEETZ; DUKE
UNIVERSITY, Incorporated; ROBERT WINFREE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-94-292-CV-1, CA-94-293-CV-1, CA-94-294-CV-1, CA-94-295-
CV-1)
Submitted: March 5, 1996 Decided: March 19, 1996
Before ERVIN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior
Circuit Judge.
No. 95-2265 affirmed in part and dismissed in part and No. 95-2723
dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lorenzo W. Coats, Appellant Pro Se. John Morgan Simpson, Sally
Patricia Paxton, FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, Washington, D.C., for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
In No. 95-2265 Appellant appeals the district court's deci-
sions compelling arbitration and denying a preliminary injunction.
In No. 95-2723, Appellant appeals the district court's order re-
fusing to stay arbitration pending appeal. We dismiss the appeal of
the district court's decision compelling arbitration in No. 95-2265
for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This
court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28
U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial
Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is
neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral
order. See Humphrey v. Prudential Sec. Inc., 4 F.3d 313, 137 (4th
Cir. 1993). Further, we have reviewed the record and the district
court's opinion denying the motion for a preliminary injunction and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of that
motion on the reasoning of the district court. Coats v. Kiehart,
Nos. CA-94-292-CV-1, CA-94-293-CV-1, CA-94-294-CV-1, CA-94-295-CV-1
(M.D. N.C. May 30, 1995).
Finally, in No. 95-2723, we dismiss the appeal of the district
court's decision denying a stay of arbitration pending appeal as
moot. Although we grant Appellee's request to strike the Appel-
lant's affidavit filed in this court, we deny Appellee's motion to
strike Appellant's informal reply brief. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
No. 95-2265 - DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART
No. 95-2723 - DISMISSED
4