Randall Patrick v. Citibank, N.A.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000088195-2]. Originating case number: 1:17-cv-00218-CCE-JLW. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000165489]. Mailed to: Randall Patrick. [17-1663]

Appeal: 17-1663

Doc: 18

Filed: 10/02/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1663

RANDALL PATRICK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITIBANK, N.A.,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00218-CCE-JLW)

Submitted: September 28, 2017

Decided: October 2, 2017

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall Patrick, Appellant Pro Se. Cassandra Lauren Crawford, Donald Richard Pocock,
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-1663

Doc: 18

Filed: 10/02/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Randall Patrick seeks to appeal from the district court’s order denying his motion to
remand the case to the state court, denying as moot his motion to expedite a decision on
his motion to remand, and granting Citibank’s motion to stay the action and to compel
arbitration. 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 Patrick seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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

2