Brothers of the Wheel M.C. v. Gerald Mollohan

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to strike [999031544-2], denying Motion to strike [999030637-2] Originating case number: 2:11-cv-00104 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999089523]. Mailed to: Mollohan. [12-2461]

Appeal: 12-2461

Doc: 32

Filed: 04/18/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2461

BROTHERS OF THE WHEEL M.C. EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, INC., a West
Virginia Corporation,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GERALD R. MOLLOHAN,
Defendant – Appellant,
and
JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 50,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (2:11-cv-00104)

Submitted:

April 3, 2013

Decided:

April 18, 2013

Before SHEDD and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald R. Mollohan, Appellant Pro Se.
Richard
South Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

J.

Lindroth,

Appeal: 12-2461

Doc: 32

Filed: 04/18/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-2461

Doc: 32

Filed: 04/18/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Gerald

R.

Mollohan

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order ruling that he is liable to Appellee for damages
and

ordering

the

parties

to

submit

certain

information,

but

ordering that no damages would be awarded until the information
is received and evaluated by the district court.

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

Mollohan

Corp.,

seeks

to

337

U.S.

appeal

is

541,

545-46

neither

a

(1949).
final

appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

The

order

order

nor

an

See Liberty Mut.

Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 742 (1976); Carolina Power &
Light Co. v. Dynegy Mktg. & Trade, 415 F.3d 354, 358 (4th Cir.
2005).

Accordingly,

jurisdiction.

We

dispense

oral

with

contentions

are

we

deny

dismiss

the

Appellee’s

argument

adequately

motions

because

presented

appeal

in

the
the

to

for

lack

strike.

facts

of
We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3