UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DEVEREUX FOUNDATION, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. THE BALTIMORE BAIS DIN, a/k/a Rabbi Mordecai Schuchatowitz, Rabbinical Judge, Party in Interest-Appellant, BERTRAND G. FINK; LOUISE FINK; No. 97-1992 DAVID A. GREENBERG; PATRICIA GREENBERG; JONAH GREENFIELD; CHERYL L. GREENFIELD; STANLEY LABOVITZ; RANESSA LABOVITZ; JACK ROSENBLOOM; PAUL WALTER; MARILYN W. WALTER; RAY WEINSTEIN; ADEAN ZAPINSKY; JUDITH CJ ZAPINSKY, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-95-2977-L) Submitted: September 29, 1998 Decided: October 30, 1998 Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.COUNSEL Baltimore Bais Din, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. James F.Rosner, David Kevin Gildea, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM:Irvin and Miriam Fischer leased a home in Baltimore to the Devereux Foundation (the Foundation) for use as a therapeutic group homefor children with mental and emotional disabilities. A group of neighborhood homeowners, including Bertrand Fink, objected to the intended use of the property. They took their concerns to a rabbinicalcourt, or Bais Din, which found for the Fischers, and then to the Circuit Court of the City of Baltimore, which determined that enforcement of restrictive covenants on the property would violate federal fair housing laws.The Foundation then filed this action against Fink and other neighbors, claiming that their various actions violated the Fair Housing Act. As part of discovery, the Foundation sought the deposition of Rabbi Mordecai Schuchatowitz, one of three rabbis who presided atthe Bais Din, as well as various documents pertaining to that proceeding. The district court granted the motion to compel the deposition ofthe rabbi and the production of all documents pertaining to the rabbinical court proceeding. Rabbi Schuchatowitz, on behalf of the Baltimore Bais Din, seeks to appeal the district court's order. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and
2collateral orders, see 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order at issue here does not fall within the narrow exception of Cohen . See MDK, Inc. v. Mike's Train House, Inc. , 27 F.3d 116, 121- 22 (4th Cir. 1994) (appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review orders compelling discovery of nonparties; to obtain review of discoveryorder, nonparty must refuse to comply with order, be held in contempt, and appeal the contempt order). We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are fully presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3