Court Opinion

ID: 9382170
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-24 21:01:40.746705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:37.719810
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2060      Doc: 16         Filed: 03/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2060

        ROMAN CLEMENT,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        SPARTANBURG STEEL PRODUCTS, INC.,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Spartanburg. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (7:22-cv-00173-MGL-KFM)

        Submitted: March 21, 2023                                         Decided: March 23, 2023

        Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Roman Lavar Clement, Appellant Pro Se. Wade Edward Ballard, FORD & HARRISON
        LLP, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2060      Doc: 16         Filed: 03/23/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Roman Clement seeks to appeal a September 6, 2022, order related to the dismissal

        of some, but not all, of the claims raised in Clement’s 42 U.S.C. § 1981 civil action. This

        court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain

        interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.

        Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Clement seeks to

        appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, and the

        district court’s docket confirms that the underlying litigation is ongoing. Accordingly, we

        grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We

        deny Clement’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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

                                                     2