Henry Okpala v. Computer Sciences Corporation
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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No. 15-1637 dismissed; No. 15-1914 affirmed by unpublished per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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?