Case Name: Derek JARVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ENTERPRISE FLEET SERVICES AND LEASING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee; Derek Jarvis, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Enterprise Fleet Services and Leasing Company, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-23
Citations: 358 F. App'x 409
Docket Number: Nos. 09-1835, 09-1953
Parties: Derek JARVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ENTERPRISE FLEET SERVICES AND LEASING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Derek Jarvis, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Enterprise Fleet Services and Leasing Company, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 358
Pages: 409–410

Head Matter:
Derek JARVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ENTERPRISE FLEET SERVICES AND LEASING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Derek Jarvis, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Enterprise Fleet Services and Leasing Company, Defendant-Appellee.
Nos. 09-1835, 09-1953.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 17, 2009.
Decided: Dec. 23, 2009.
Derek Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Lee Isler, Michelle Bodley Radcliffe, Isler, Dare, Ray, Radcliffe & Connolly, P.C., Vienna, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Derek Jarvis seeks to appeal the district court's paperless orders denying his motions to stay and to recuse the magistrate judge and the district court's order granting Defendant's motion for sanctions related to Defendant's motion to compel discovery. 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 Jarvis seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.