Eric Sanders v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [1000049102-2], denying Motion for other relief [999993289-2]; denying Motion for abeyance (Local Rule 12(d)) [999999818-2]; denying Motion to supplement [999999817-2]. Originating case number: 0:15-cv-02313-JMC-PJG Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000054362]. [16-2151]

Appeal: 16-2151

Doc: 21

Filed: 04/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2151

ERIC ALAN SANDERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, of Charlotte, NC;
JOHN HAYWARD; MIKE CALZAREETA; DOUG FORD; RAYVON IRBY,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (0:15-cv-02313-JMC-PJG)

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 3, 2017

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 16-2151

Doc: 21

Filed: 04/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

Eric Alan Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Celeste T. Jones, Richard James Morgan,
MCNAIR LAW FIRM, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-2151

Doc: 21

Filed: 04/03/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Eric Alan Sanders seeks to appeal the district court’s order overruling his
objections to the magistrate judge’s order compelling him to respond to the Defendant’s
discovery requests. 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, 545-46
(1949). The order Sanders seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Sanders’ motions and dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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