Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01450/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01450-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brandon Brown
Appellant
Paine College
Appellee
Samuel Sullivan
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1450

BRANDON BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SAMUEL SULLIVAN, Individually and as Acting President of 

Paine College; PAINE COLLEGE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (6:14-cv-04376-GRA)

Submitted: April 22, 2016 Decided: May 5, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fletcher N. Smith, Jr., LAW FIRM OF FLETCHER N. SMITH, JR., LLC, 

Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Michael M. 

Shetterly, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., 

Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1450 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/05/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Brandon Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

transferring this case to the District of Georgia and denying

reconsideration of that order. 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 (1949). The orders Brown seeks 

to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory 

or collateral orders. See In re Carefirst of Md., Inc., 305 

F.3d 253, 256 (4th Cir. 2002). We do not find persuasive 

Brown’s argument that our holding in Wye Oak Technology, Inc. v. 

Iraq, 666 F.3d 205, 209-10 (4th Cir. 2011), applies to salvage 

this appeal. 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-1450 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/05/2016 Pg: 2 of 2