Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Brian Hill v. EOUSA, 17-1866 (2017)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 17-1866 Visitors: 9
Filed: Oct. 19, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1866 BRIAN DAVID HILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, EOUSA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. DOJ, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:17-cv-00027-JLK-RSB) Submitted: October 17, 2017 Decided: October 19, 2017 Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-1866


BRIAN DAVID HILL,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, EOUSA;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. DOJ,

                    Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:17-cv-00027-JLK-RSB)


Submitted: October 17, 2017                                   Decided: October 19, 2017


Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Brian David Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Cheryl Thornton Sloan, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Brian David Hill seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying his

discovery-related motions and granting Defendants’ motion to quash discovery in his

pending Freedom of Information Act action. 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 Hill 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 this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.



                                                                               DISMISSED




                                             2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer