Michael Ellis v. Kanawha County Public Library

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999974835-2]; denying Motion to impose sanctions [999975909-2]; granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999975900-2] Originating case number: 2:15-cv-05698 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000056996]. Mailed to: Michael Ellis 168 5th Street Dunbar, WV 25064. [16-2244]

Appeal: 16-2244

Doc: 19

Filed: 04/06/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2244

MICHAEL ELLIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KANAWHA COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
ALAN ENGLEBERT, Director,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (2:15-cv-05698)

Submitted:

March 30, 2017

Decided:

April 6, 2017

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Ellis, Appellant Pro Se.
Craig W. Snethen, GORDON &
REES, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2244

Doc: 19

Filed: 04/06/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Michael Ellis seeks to appeal the district court’s order
partially

granting

the

Appellee’s

motion

to

dismiss

Ellis’

complaint and referring the matter to a magistrate judge for
consideration of the remaining claim.

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).
to

appeal

is

neither

a

final

interlocutory or collateral order.

The order Ellis seeks

order

nor

an

appealable

Accordingly, we deny leave

to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.

We deny the Appellee’s motion for sanctions and a

prefiling injunction because Ellis’ litigation does not warrant
sanctions.
1997)

See, e.g., Foley v. Fix, 106 F.3d 556, 558 (4th Cir.

(sanctioning

pro

se

litigant

who

filed

23

frivolous

appeals in just over one year); Autry v. Woods, 106 F.3d 61, 63
(4th Cir. 1997) (sanctioning pro se litigant who filed more than
a dozen actions in which he threatened, harassed, or demeaned
women in the criminal justice system).

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
2