Derek Jarvis v. Grady Management, Incorporated


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:09-cv-00280-PJM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998415230] [10-1451, 10-1550]

Download PDF
Derek Jarvis v. Grady Management, Incorporated Doc. 0 Case: 10-1451 Document: 22 Date Filed: 08/31/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1451 DEREK N. JARVIS; SHIRLEY J. PITTMAN, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. GRADY MANAGEMENT,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) No. 10-1550 In Re: DEREK N. JARVIS; SHIRLEY J. PITTMAN, Petitioners. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: August 26, 2010 (8:09-cv-00280-PJM) Decided: August 31, 2010 Case: 10-1451 Document: 22 Date Filed: 08/31/2010 Page: 2 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. No. 10-1451 dismissed; No. unpublished per curiam opinion. 10-1550 petition denied by Derek N. Jarvis, Shirley J. Pittman, Appellants/Petitioners Pro Se. Charles Lowell Frederick, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland; Edward P. Henneberry, ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP, Washington, DC; John Benjamin Raftery, OFFIT KURMAN, PA, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Case: 10-1451 Document: 22 Date Filed: 08/31/2010 Page: 3 PER CURIAM: Derek N. Jarvis and Shirley J. Pittman appeal from the district court's order, in their civil action, directing them to file a supplement to their amended complaint that contains a short, plain statement of facts, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Appellants seek to appeal this order. 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 is Corp., 337 U.S. a 541, 545-46 order (1949). nor an The order appealed neither final appealable interlocutory or collateral order. appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellants have also Accordingly, we dismiss the filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking this court to compel the district court judge to recuse himself from their proceeding below. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 860 F.2d Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy Kerr v. In re 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). made such a showing. of mandamus. Appellants have not Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ We dispense with oral argument because the facts 3 Case: 10-1451 Document: 22 Date Filed: 08/31/2010 Page: 4 and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. No. 10-1451 DISMISSED No. 10-1550 PETITION DENIED 4

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?