Henry Okpala v. Computer Sciences Corporation


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-03614-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999738763]. Mailed to: Henry Uche Okpala P. O. Box 9675 Newark, DE 19714. [15-1637, 15-1914]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-1637 Doc: 19 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pg: 1 of 5 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1637 HENRY UCHE OKPALA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, CSC, Defendant - Appellee, and ROBIN SCHERMERHORN, CSC; DAVID H. MARTIN, CSC; WILLIAM SHOCKRO, CSC; CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES, CMS, Third Party, Defendants. No. 15-1914 HENRY UCHE OKPALA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, CSC, Defendant - Appellee, and Appeal: 15-1637 Doc: 19 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pg: 2 of 5 ROBIN SCHERMERHORN, CSC; DAVID H. MARTIN, CSC; WILLIAM SHOCKRO, CSC; CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES, CMS, Third Party, Defendants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-03614-JFM) Submitted: November 30, 2015 Before WYNN and Circuit Judge. DIAZ, Decided: Circuit Judges, and January 20, 2016 HAMILTON, Senior No. 15-1637 dismissed; No. 15-1914 affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Uche Okpala, Appellant Pro Se. Frank Daniel Wood, Jr., KULLMAN FIRM, Birmingham, Alabama, Joseph Richard Ward, III, KULLMAN LAW FIRM, New Orleans, Louisiana, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 15-1637 Doc: 19 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pg: 3 of 5 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Henry Uche Okpala seeks to appeal the recusal district and granting court’s summary orders denying judgment to his motion Computer for Sciences Corporation (“CSC”). 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 Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 54546 (1949). The district court’s recusal order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in No. 15-1637 for lack of jurisdiction. ∗ ∗ The fact that final judgment issued while this appeal was pending does not give us jurisdiction over this appeal because the district court’s recusal order was not an order that could have been followed by the immediate issuance of partial final judgment. In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 288 (4th Cir. 2005) (“[Appellate] Rule 4(a)(2) does not allow a premature notice of appeal from a clearly interlocutory decision . . . to serve as a notice of appeal from the final judgment.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Additionally, to the extent Okpala’s informal briefs in No. 15-1637 could be construed as a request for a writ of mandamus or No. 15-1914 could be construed as challenging the denial of Okpala’s recusal motions, Okpala has failed to establish a valid basis for recusal. See Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2011) (“[J]udicial rulings and opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings[,] almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias (Continued) 3 Appeal: 15-1637 Doc: 19 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pg: 4 of 5 In No. 15-1914, Okpala appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to CSC. Okpala contends that (1) CSC’s motion for summary judgment was untimely, and (2) he was denied adequate opportunity for discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). Upon review of the record, we conclude that the summary judgment motion was timely because it was filed within the deadline set by the district court in its May 4, 2015 order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b) (“Unless a different time is set by local rule or the court orders otherwise, a party may file a motion for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery.” (emphasis added)); see also Fayetteville Inv’rs v. Commercial Builders, Inc., 936 F.2d 1462, 1469 (4th Cir. 1991) reconsideration judgment.”). at We (“An any also interlocutory time prior conclude to that order the is entry Okpala was subject of to a final given ample opportunity for discovery but refused to engage in the discovery process according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that, in discovery any event, could submitted by CSC. Okpala enable him has not shown to overcome how the the requested ample evidence Pisano v. Strach, 743 F.3d 927, 931 (4th Cir. or partiality motion.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988) (holding that mandamus relief is available only if “petitioner has shown a clear right to the relief sought”). 4 Appeal: 15-1637 Doc: 19 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pg: 5 of 5 2014) (“[A] court may deny a Rule 56(d) motion [for further discovery] create a when the genuine information issue of sought material would fact nonmovant to survive summary judgment.”). not by sufficient itself for the Therefore, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to CSC. Accordingly, in No. 15-1637, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and court’s judgment. facts and materials legal before in No. 15-1914, we affirm the district We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. No. 15-1637 DISMISSED No. 15-1914 AFFIRMED 5

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?