Court Opinion

ID: 9404393
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 21:03:33.155079+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:13.577714
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1509      Doc: 17         Filed: 06/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1509

        KATHY STEELE, Administrator of the Estate of Robert David Steele, et al.; EARTH
        INTELLIGENCE NETWORK,

                            Plaintiffs - Appellees,

                     v.

        JASON GOODMAN,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:21-cv-00573-JAG)

        Submitted: June 15, 2023                                          Decided: June 21, 2023

        Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jason Goodman, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Scott Biss, LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN S.
        BISS, Charlottesville, Virginia for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1509         Doc: 17      Filed: 06/21/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jason Goodman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for

        summary judgment on the Plaintiffs’ claims of defamation and business conspiracy. 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 Goodman seeks to

        appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

        Accordingly, we grant Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and

        we deny as moot Plaintiffs’ motion to expedite. We also deny Plaintiffs’ request for

        attorneys’ fees. 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