Nathan E. Wilson v. Fairfield Inn Suites- Marriott
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00899-NCT-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000087959]. Mailed to: Nathan E. Wilson. [17-1047]
Appeal: 17-1047
Doc: 14
Filed: 05/25/2017
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1047
NATHAN E. WILSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FAIRFIELD INN SUITES- MARRIOTT, RDU,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. L. Patrick Auld, Magistrate Judge. (1:16-cv-00899-NCT-LPA)
Submitted: May 23, 2017
Decided: May 25, 2017
Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathan E. Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Regina Worley Calabro, Robert Allen Sar,
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 17-1047
Doc: 14
Filed: 05/25/2017
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Nathan E. Wilson seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s text orders denying his
motion to appoint counsel and denying without prejudice his motion regarding mediation.
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 orders
Wilson seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral
orders. Accordingly, we 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
2
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?