Court Opinion

ID: 9929753
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-03 21:01:08.516737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:46:31.482978
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2156      Doc: 51         Filed: 02/02/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-2156

        ANDREW U. D. STRAW,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:23-cv-00162-BO-BM)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 2, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Andrew U. D. Straw, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2156         Doc: 51      Filed: 02/02/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Andrew U. D. Straw seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion

        for leave to refile two pro se motions that were denied pursuant to the court’s case

        management order. 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

        Straw seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral

        order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny Straw’s

        pending motions. 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