Edward McReady v. Martin O'Malley

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:08-cv-02347-RWT Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998441132] [10-1402]

Download PDF
Edward McReady v. Martin O'Malley Doc. 0 Case: 10-1402 Document: 14 Date Filed: 10/07/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1402 EDWARD C. MCREADY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARTIN O'MALLEY, Honorable, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Maryland; UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF MARYLAND; WILLIAM E. KIRWAN; UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND UNIVERSITY COLLEGE; SUSAN ALDRIDGE; LAWRENCE E. LEAK; GREG VON LEHMAN; JOHN VOLPE; RHEA REED; RACHEL ZELKIND; SHAWNA ACKER-BALL; MEGAN FARRELL; THOMAS HOGAN; STATE OF MARYLAND; ELIZABETH MULHERRIN; ADELAIDE A. LAGNESE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:08cv-02347-RWT) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 7, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward C. McReady, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Faulk, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Dockets.Justia.com Case: 10-1402 Document: 14 Date Filed: 10/07/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Edward C. McReady appeals the district court's orders that denied his motion for reconsideration of its prior order denying McReady leave to file amended complaints; denied his motion to rescind its prior order denying leave to file amended complaints; and denied reconsideration of these rulings. 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); (1949). orders Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 The orders McReady seeks to appeal are neither final nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. We Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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?