Case ID: f-appx_331/html/0193-02.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

Derek JARVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ENTERPRISE FLEET SERVICES AND LEASING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Derek Jarvis, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Enterprise Fleet Services and Leasing Company, Defendant-Appellee. Derek Jarvis, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Enterprise Fleet Services and Leasing Company, Defendant-Appellee. Derek Jarvis, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Enterprise Fleet Services and Leasing Company, Defendant-Appellee.
    Nos. 09-1278, 09-1675, 09-1681, 09-1718.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 30, 2009.
    Decided: Aug. 4, 2009.
    Derek Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Lee Isler, Isler, Dare, Ray, Radcliffe & Connolly, PC, Vienna, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
    Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Derek Jams seeks to appeal various orders in civil action: the denial of his motion to compel discovery, the denial of his motion for stay, the denial of his motion to recuse the district judge, and the order granting Defendant’s motion to compel discovery. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over- final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain inteiioc-utory 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The orders Jarvis seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we grant Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal as this Court lacks jurisdiction. We also deny Jams’ motion for default judgment and for stay pending appeal and Appellee’s motion for sanctions and motion for an extension of time to respond to Jarvis’ motion for default judgment. 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.