Case Name: MEINEKE CAR CARE CENTERS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph E. GLOVER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-09-13
Citations: 446 F. App'x 613
Docket Number: No. 11-1127
Parties: MEINEKE CAR CARE CENTERS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph E. GLOVER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 446
Pages: 613–614

Head Matter:
MEINEKE CAR CARE CENTERS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph E. GLOVER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-1127.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 24, 2011.
Decided: Sept. 13, 2011.
Joseph E. Glover, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Kathleen Reynolds, Deputy General Counsel, Ted P. Pearce, Driven Brands, Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.
Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph E. Glover appeals the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction to Meineke Car Care Centers, Inc. We review the district court's order for abuse of discretion. Planned Parenthood of Blue Ridge v. Cambios, 155 F.3d 352, 359 (4th Cir.1998) (en banc). We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order.
Glover also challenges the district court's disposition of his argument that venue did not lie in the Western District of North Carolina. 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 district court's determination of venue is not a final or appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss these arguments 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.