Court Opinion

ID: 9902074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 21:00:44.861728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:45.247077
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1726      Doc: 15         Filed: 11/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1726

        JAMES ADEYEMI,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:21-cv-02488-GLR)

        Submitted: November 16, 2023                                Decided: November 21, 2023

        Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        James Adeyemi, Appellant Pro Se. Gilda Bethany Ingle, Laura Ann Saracina, LITTLER
        MENDELSON PC, Tysons Corner, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1726      Doc: 15          Filed: 11/21/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               James Adeyemi seeks to appeal the district court’s order referring his case to a

        magistrate judge for resolution of certain discovery disputes in Adeyemi’s action alleging

        disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.

        §§ 12101 to 12213. 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

        Adeyemi 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                        DISMISSED

                                                      2