Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-01246/USCOURTS-ca4-10-01246-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1246

DAVID C. CORSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PAUL A. MATTOX, JR.; ROGER PROPST, Superintendent of Schools 

Calhoun County Board of Education,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, 

District Judge. (1:09-cv-00065-IMK-JSK)

Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 10, 2010

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David C. Corson, Appellant Pro Se. April Joy Wheeler, David Lee 

Wyant, BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia; Jeffery 

Dale Taylor, ROSE PADDEN & PETTY, LC, Fairmont, West Virginia, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-1246 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/10/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

David C. Corson filed a civil complaint asserting 

claims arising under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the 

Americans with Disabilities Act. The matter was referred to a 

magistrate judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (2006), who

recommended denying relief and notified Corson of his right to 

file objections to the report and recommendation. Instead, 

Corson filed a notice of appeal. 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 (1949). The order Corson 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 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

Appeal: 10-1246 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/10/2010 Pg: 2 of 2