Case ID: f-appx_696/html/0641-01.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

Kevin SCHAAP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KENTUCKY HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENT LOAN CORPORATION; Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Agency; Equifax Information Services; Experian Information Services; Transunion, LLC., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-1491
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: August 24, 2017
    Decided: August 28, 2017
    Kevin Schaap, Appellant Pro Se. Russell M. Racine, Virginia Marie Wooten, CRAN-FILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Rita Bolt Barker, WYCHE, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina; Norman Charles Campbell, II, KING & SPALDING, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; William Henry Rooks, JONES DAY, Atlanta, Georgia; Lyndey Ritz Zwingel-berg, ADAMS & REESE, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina; Russell Grainger Hines, Wilbur Eugene Johnson, YOUNG CLEMENT RIVERS, LLP, Charleston, South Carolina; Amanda P. Loughmiller, STRASBURGER & PRICE, LLP, Frisco, Texas, for Appellees.
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Schaap seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s text order denying Schaap’s motion for extensions of multiple filing deadlines in his underlying civil action. 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 Schaap seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant Defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Schaap’s motions for judicial notice of fraud on the court and for a stay of these proceedings. 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