Case Name: Kouroush Cyrus SANY; Security System Solutions, Incorporated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-18
Citations: 324 F. App'x 281
Docket Number: No. 08-2101
Parties: Kouroush Cyrus SANY; Security System Solutions, Incorporated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 324
Pages: 281–281

Head Matter:
Kouroush Cyrus SANY; Security System Solutions, Incorporated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-2101.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 1, 2009.
Decided: May 18, 2009.
Martin M. Mooradian, Annandale, Virginia; Carlos M. Sandoval, Sandoval & Keng, PLLC, Waldorf, Maryland; Robert Norman Levin, The Law Offices of Robert N. Levin, PC, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellants. Joseph M. Potenza, Bradley C. Wright, Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., Washington, D.C.; Christopher J. Renk, Michael Harris, Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., Chicago, Illinois; Robert R. Sparks, Jr., Sparks & Craig, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appel-lee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Appellants seek to appeal the district court's order compelling arbitration and staying the proceedings as to Appellant Kouroush Cyrus Sany. 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 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.