Court Opinion

ID: 9960727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 21:00:53.160439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:50.536528
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1980      Doc: 28         Filed: 04/15/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1980

        MARK EKE,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        UNITED THERAPEUTICS; MARTINE ROTHBLATT; JENESIS ROTHBLATT;
        SHOLA OYEWOLE; ROBERT DAYE,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:18-cv-02941-PX)

        Submitted: April 11, 2024                                         Decided: April 15, 2024

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

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Mark Eke, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Mary Costantino, SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP,
        Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1980         Doc: 28        Filed: 04/15/2024   Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Mark Eke seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for

        summary judgment on Eke’s sex discrimination and sexual harassment claims, brought

        pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, and

        denying Defendants’ motion for sanctions. 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 Eke 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