Case Name: John G. SINGLETARY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, and Carla C. Singletary, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO WACHOVIA MORTGAGE CORPORATION, its employees to include agents individually and collectively to include David Bates, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-09-09
Citations: 445 F. App'x 662
Docket Number: No. 11-1630
Parties: John G. SINGLETARY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, and Carla C. Singletary, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO WACHOVIA MORTGAGE CORPORATION, its employees to include agents individually and collectively to include David Bates, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 445
Pages: 662–662

Head Matter:
John G. SINGLETARY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, and Carla C. Singletary, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO WACHOVIA MORTGAGE CORPORATION, its employees to include agents individually and collectively to include David Bates, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-1630.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 22, 2011.
Decided: Sept. 9, 2011.
John G. Singletary, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Hamlet Sam Mabry, III, Haynsworth, Sinkler & Boyd, PA, Greenville, South Carolina; Stafford J. McQuillin, III, Haynsworth, Sinkler & Boyd, PA, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John G. Singletary, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's entry of a scheduling order in his civil suit against Wells Fargo Wachovia Mortgage Corporation. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Single-tary seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, as no judge has requested a poll on Singletary's motion for en banc reconsideration of the denial of his motion for stay, we deny that motion 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.