McCrea v. Johns Hopkins Universities et al

Filing 64

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 61 Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal and Stay of Court Order; finding as moot 62 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis; finding as moot 63 Motion to Amend Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 8/11/2016. (c/m 8/11/16 ca2s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
NICOLE RENA McCREA,

*

Plaintiff

*

v.

*

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITIES et al.,
Defendants
*
*

CIVIL NO. JKB-15-579

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal
of the July 27, 2016, Court Order and Motion to Stay the July 27, 2016, Court Order (ECF
No. 61), Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis (ECF No. 62), and Plaintiff’s
Motion to Amend her Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis (ECF No. 63). The Court
will not require Defendants to respond. No hearing is necessary. Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md.
2016). The motions will be denied.
Discovery matters and related scheduling issues were referred by the undersigned to
Magistrate Judge Beth P. Gesner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

(ECF No. 33.)

In

accordance with that reference, Judge Gesner entered an order resolving nine discovery motions.
(ECF No. 60.) Judge Gesner’s rulings were made according to established legal principles.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b),
When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise
appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a
controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference
of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance
the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order.

The order from which McCrea seeks to appeal does not “involve[] a controlling question
of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion.” Plaintiff has set forth
no plausible basis for her vigorous attempts to resist the production of relevant evidence in this
case. Her motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal is groundless. Her other motions
are, therefore, moot.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for certification of
interlocutory appeal and stay as to the Court’s order of July 27, 2016 (ECF No. 61) IS DENIED
and that her motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (ECF No. 62) and her motion to amend
her motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (ECF No. 63) ARE MOOT.
The Clerk shall ensure the parties are sent a copy of this memorandum and order.
DATED this 11th day of August, 2016.

BY THE COURT:

_____________/s/_____________________
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge

2