Eric Sanders v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying motion to consolidate case [1000243562-2]; denying motion to stay lower court proceedings [1000286413-2]; denying renewed motion to stay lower court proceedings [1000296969-2]. Originating case number: 0:15-cv-02313-JMC. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000319942]. [18-1180]

Appeal: 18-1180

Doc: 13

Filed: 06/27/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1180

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. Paige Jones Gossett, Magistrate Judge. (0:15-cv-02313-JMC)

Submitted: June 21, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Alan Sanders, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Decided: June 27, 2018

Appeal: 18-1180

Doc: 13

Filed: 06/27/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Eric Alan Sanders seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint. 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. Moreover, to the extent Sanders seeks
to appeal regarding his “Request for Injunctive Relief,” the magistrate judge cannot rule
on motions for injunctive relief, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (2012), and the district court
has not ruled on that request. Accordingly, we deny Sanders’ pending 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

2