Case Name: Derek JARVIS; Shirley J. Pittman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GRADY MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED; Duffie, Incorporated; April Lane Joint Ventures; Montgomery County Government/Montgomery County Executive; Montgomery County Housing and Community Affairs Office; Montgomery County Attorney's Office, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-23
Citations: 334 F. App'x 559
Docket Number: No. 09-1428
Parties: Derek JARVIS; Shirley J. Pittman, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. GRADY MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED; Duffie, Incorporated; April Lane Joint Ventures; Montgomery County Government/Montgomery County Executive; Montgomery County Housing and Community Affairs Office; Montgomery County Attorney’s Office, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 334
Pages: 559–559

Head Matter:
Derek JARVIS; Shirley J. Pittman, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. GRADY MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED; Duffie, Incorporated; April Lane Joint Ventures; Montgomery County Government/Montgomery County Executive; Montgomery County Housing and Community Affairs Office; Montgomery County Attorney’s Office, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 09-1428.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 18, 2009.
Decided: June 23, 2009.
Derek Jarvis, Shirley J. Pittman, Appellants Pro Se. John Benjamin Raftery, Deckelbaum, Ogens & Raftery, Chartered, Bethesda, Maryland; Edward Barry Latt-ner, County Attorney’s Office, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Appellants Derek Jarvis and Shirley J. Pittman seek to appeal the district court's order entered on April 8, 2009. The order granted various Defendants' motions to stay discovery and motions for a more definite statement, and denied Plaintiffs' motion to order Defendants to file all documents and to refile and rescan documents. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Appellants seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant Appellants' motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 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.