Case ID: f-appx_131/html/0424-01.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

Lee Kent HEMPFLING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LM COMMUNICATIONS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INCORPORATED, a Kentucky Corporation; LM Communications II of South Carolina, Incorporated, a Kentucky Corporation, Defendants—Appellees, and LM Communications Incorporated, a Kentucky Corporation, Defendant.
    No. 04-2547.
    United States Coúrt of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 27, 2005.
    Decided: May 17, 2005.
    Lee Kent Hempfling, Appellant pro se.
    Lewis Gregory Cook Horton, Buist, Moore, Smythe, McGee, PA, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge,
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Lee Kent Hempfling seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying Hempfling’s challenge to the magistrate judge’s order granting Defendants’ motion for extension of time to respond to Hempfling’s motion for summary judgment. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Hempfling seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Defendants’ motion to declare the appeal frivolous and for an award of fees and costs. 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