Douglas Osborne v. Bakers Confectionary

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to compel [999522975-2] Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00749-CCE-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999546159]. Mailed to: Douglas Osborne. [14-2067]

Appeal: 14-2067

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/16/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2067

DOUGLAS E. OSBORNE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BAKERS CONFECTIONARY,
UNION, LOCAL T-317,

TOBACCO

WORKERS

AND

GRAIN

MILLERS

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00749-CCE-LPA)

Submitted:

March 12, 2015

Decided:

March 16, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. *

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Douglas E. Osborne, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*

The opinion is filed by a quorum pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 46(d).

Appeal: 14-2067

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/16/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Douglas E. Osborne seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
and,

pursuant

dismissing

to

28

without

U.S.C.

prejudice

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)

his

civil

complaint

former union for failure to state a claim.

(2012),

against

his

This court may

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(2012),

and

certain

interlocutory

and

collateral

orders,

28

U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial
Indus.

Loan

Osborne

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

Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and we deny as moot
Osborne’s

motion

dispense

with

contentions

are

to

oral

compel

the

argument

adequately

production
because

presented

in

of

the
the

documents.

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

†

Because Osborne may amend
defects identified by the district
interlocutory and not appealable.
Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir.
Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10
1993).

2

his complaint to cure the
court, the dismissal order is
See Chao v. Rivendell Woods,
2005); Domino Sugar Corp. v.
F.3d 1064, 1066–67 (4th Cir.