Case Name: Michael ELLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KANAWHA COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY, Defendant-Appellee, and Alan Englebert, Director, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-06
Citations: 684 F. App'x 312
Docket Number: No. 16-2244
Parties: Michael ELLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KANAWHA COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY, Defendant-Appellee, and Alan Englebert, Director, Defendant.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 684
Pages: 312–313

Head Matter:
Michael ELLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KANAWHA COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY, Defendant-Appellee, and Alan Englebert, Director, Defendant.
No. 16-2244
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 30, 2017
Decided: April 6, 2017
Michael Ellis, Appellant Pro Se.
Craig W. Snethen,'GORDON & REES, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Ellis seeks to appeal the district court's order partially granting the Appel-lee's motion to dismiss Ellis' complaint and referring the matter to a magistrate judge for consideration of the remaining claim. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Ellis seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction., We deny the Appel-lee's motion for sanctions and a prefiling injunction because Ellis' litigation does not warrant sanctions. See, e.g., Foley v. Fix, 106 F.3d 556, 558 (4th Cir. 1997) (sanctioning pro se litigant who filed 23 frivolous appeals in just over one year); Autry v. Woods, 106 F.3d 61, 63 (4th. Cir. 1997) (sanctioning pro se litigant who filed more than a dozen actions in which he threatened, harassed, or demeaned women in the criminal justice system). 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