Case ID: f-appx_466/html/0250-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deepak RAJANI; Travellers.Com, an Internet domain name, Defendants-Appellants. Dear!Net Online E.K., Appellant.
    No. 11-1827.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 30, 2012.
    Decided: Feb. 16, 2012.
    Deepak Rajani, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Hanley Bald, Anna Bonny Chauvet, Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, for Appellee.
    Before KING, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Deepak Rajani seeks to appeal several orders of the district court regarding The Travelers Indemnity Company’s (“Travelers”) action against him and his website TRAVELLERS.COM. In his notice of appeal filed on August 4, 2011, Rajani seeks to appeal five district court orders: the two orders entered on July 5, 2011, and the orders entered on July 11, 2011, July 14, 2011, and July 29, 2011.

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, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). None of the orders from which Rajani appeals are final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Thus, we grant Travelers’ motion to dismiss in part Rajani’s appeal of the first four district court orders as interlocutory. This leaves the July 29, 2011 order in which the district court granted Travelers’ motion for partial summary judgment. The July 29 order is also interlocutory. Thus, we dismiss the remainder of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, We deny the parties’ remaining pending motions as moot and 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.