Case ID: f-appx_671/html/0081-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

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.
    No. 16-1806
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 22, 2016
    Decided: November 29, 2016
    John S. Stritzinger, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John S. Stritzinger seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion to reopen his ease. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Stritzinger seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appeal-able 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