Derek Jarvis v. Grady Management, Incorporated

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1451 DEREK N. JARVIS; SHIRLEY J. PITTMAN, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. GRADY MANAGEMENT,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

Dockets.Justia.com

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 No. 10-1451 dismissed; No. unpublished per curiam opinion. 10-1550 petition denied by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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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