Filed: Jun. 20, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1284 RICHARD PEAMON, Plaintiff - Appellant, and BILL NORRIS; MICHAEL RICH, Plaintiffs, versus A AND R DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-02974-WMN) Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 20, 2007 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1284 RICHARD PEAMON, Plaintiff - Appellant, and BILL NORRIS; MICHAEL RICH, Plaintiffs, versus A AND R DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-02974-WMN) Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 20, 2007 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished p..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1284
RICHARD PEAMON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
BILL NORRIS; MICHAEL RICH,
Plaintiffs,
versus
A AND R DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:06-cv-02974-WMN)
Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 20, 2007
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Peamon, Appellant Pro Se. Paul D. Shelton, MCKENNON,
SHELTON & HENN, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Paula Jeanette McGill,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Richard Peamon seeks to appeal the district court’s order
granting the Defendant’s motion to set aside a default judgment and
quashing service of process. This court may exercise jurisdiction
only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S.
541 (1949). The order Peamon seeks to appeal is neither a final
order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
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 the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 2 -