Court Opinion

ID: 9395045
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-16 21:00:51.6853+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:05.120154
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1217      Doc: 13         Filed: 05/15/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1217

        In re: GRAHAM SCHIFF,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:23-mc-00065-JKB)

        Submitted: April 27, 2023                                         Decided: May 15, 2023

        Before THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Graham Harry Schiff, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1217         Doc: 13      Filed: 05/15/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Graham Harry Schiff seeks to appeal the district court’s order requiring him to file

        all communication with the court with the clerk’s office.       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 Schiff seeks to appeal is neither a final

        order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order; moreover, because it involves

        filing procedures, it is not injunctive in nature. See, e.g., Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Nat’l

        Marine Fisheries Serv., 886 F.3d 803, 825 (9th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, we dismiss the

        appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Schiff’s motion for a stay pending appeal and to

        expedite, and 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