Case Name: Robert ENKEMA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FTI CONSULTING, INC.; FTI LLC, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-04
Citations: 670 F. App'x 143
Docket Number: No. 16-1842
Parties: Robert ENKEMA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FTI CONSULTING, INC.; FTI LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 143–144

Head Matter:
Robert ENKEMA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FTI CONSULTING, INC.; FTI LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-1842
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 7, 2016
Decided: November 4, 2016
Jonathan Biran, Biran Kelly LLC, Baltimore, Maryland; William David Bridgers, Andrew Archer Warth, Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant. Paul Andrew Fenn, Conti, Fenn & Lawrence, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland; Judith A. Lockhart, Carter, Ledyard & Mulburn, New York, New York, for Appel-lees.
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Enkema seeks to appeal the district court's order directing arbitration in his civil action against his former employer, FTI Consulting, Inc. ("FTI"). 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). Upon review of the district court's order, we conclude that the order in question stayed the district court proceedings pending arbitration of Enke-ma's claims. Consequently, the order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(1), (2) (2012). Therefore, we grant FTI's motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny as moot Enkema's motion to reconsider the suspension of the briefing schedule. 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