Derek Jarvis v. Grady Management, Incorporated

Filing 920091223

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1836 DEREK JARVIS; SHIRLEY J. PITTMAN, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. GRADY MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED; DUFFIE, INCORPORATED; APRIL LANE JOINT VENURES; MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT/ MONTGOMERY COUNTY EXECUTIVE; MONTGOMERY COUNTY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OFFICE; MONTGOMERY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:09-cv-00280-PJM) Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: December 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derek Jarvis, Shirley J. Pittman, Appellants Pro Se. John Benjamin Raftery, OFFIT KURMAN, PA, Bethesda, Maryland; Edward Barry Lattner, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Derek N. Jarvis seeks to appeal the district court's July 7, 2009, order denying numerous motions filed in Jarvis' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. On appeal, Jarvis objects from the portion of the court's order denying his motion to recuse the district judge from his case. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Jarvis seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?