Randall Patrick v. Citibank, N.A.
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: Randall Patrick. [17-1663]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Plaintiff - Appellant,
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
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.
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?