Court Opinion

ID: 9389425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 17:01:28.862994+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:27.546722
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2226      Doc: 13         Filed: 04/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2226

        BRUCE WILSON,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        ADUSA TRANSPORTATION LLC,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge; Kevin Frank McDonald, Magistrate Judge.
        (6:22-cv-02902-TMC-KFM)

        Submitted: April 20, 2023                                         Decided: April 24, 2023

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Bruce Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Christopher Lauderdale, Frank Sanders Stern,
        JACKSON LEWIS PC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2226      Doc: 13        Filed: 04/24/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Bruce Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying Wilson’s motion to

        reconsider an order denying Wilson’s request that the court issue blank subpoenas. 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 Wilson 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