Court Opinion

ID: 9412365
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-29 21:00:54.420624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:39:41.093949
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1336      Doc: 15         Filed: 07/28/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-1336

        MENGYANG LI,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        SHEPHERD UNIVERSITY,

                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:19-cv-00216-GMG-RWT)

        Submitted: July 25, 2023                                          Decided: July 28, 2023

        Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Mengyang Li, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1336      Doc: 15         Filed: 07/28/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Mengyang Li seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion to

        postpone the submission deadline of a joint proposed schedule in his civil action and

        entering an amended schedule. 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

        orders Li seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral

        orders. 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