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

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to file supplemental brief(s) [999228830-2]; denying Motion for leave to file [999193806-2]; denying Motion for other relief [999183211-2]; denying Motion to supplement [999177375-2] Originating case number: 2:11-cv-00104. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999237790]. Mailed to: G. Mollohan. [13-1847]

Appeal: 13-1847

Doc: 29

Filed: 11/12/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1847

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

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:

October 21, 2013

Decided:

November 12, 2013

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard J. Lindroth, South Charleston, West
Appellant. Gerald R. Mollohan, Appellee Pro Se.

Virginia,

for

Appeal: 13-1847

Doc: 29

Filed: 11/12/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-1847

Doc: 29

Filed: 11/12/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
awarding
but

nominal

leaving

§ 1117(a)

its

(2006)

monetary
claim

damages

for

and

denying

attorneys

unresolved

and

fees

denying

Appellee’s request for final judgment.

reconsideration

under
without

15

U.S.C.

prejudice

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, 545-46 (1949).
seeks

to

appeal

are

neither

final

interlocutory or collateral orders.

The orders Appellant

orders

nor

appealable

See Carolina Power & Light

Co. v. Dynegy Mktg. & Trade, 415 F.3d 354, 358 (4th Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
deny Appellee’s pending motions as moot.

We

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3