Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Robert Garrett, Jr. v. Aull, 19-7151 (2019)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-7151 Visitors: 35
Filed: Oct. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7151 ROBERT LOUIS GARRETT, JR., a/k/a Chubby, a/k/a Chubb, a/k/a Tru, a/k/a Kweli, a/k/a Justice, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AULL; BECKETT, JR.; T. ESTERLINE; JAMES PARRISH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge; Paige Jones Gossett, Magistrate Judge. (0:18-cv-01418-CMC-PJG) Submitted: October 15, 20
More
                                     UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 19-7151


ROBERT LOUIS GARRETT, JR., a/k/a Chubby, a/k/a Chubb, a/k/a Tru, a/k/a
Kweli, a/k/a Justice,

                     Plaintiff - Appellant,

              v.

AULL; BECKETT, JR.; T. ESTERLINE; JAMES PARRISH,

                     Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge; Paige Jones Gossett, Magistrate
Judge. (0:18-cv-01418-CMC-PJG)


Submitted: October 15, 2019                                   Decided: October 18, 2019


Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Robert Louis Garrett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Robert Louis Garrett, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order affirming the

magistrate judge’s order and dismissing Garrett’s motions to compel discovery and for

sanctions and the magistrate judge’s order denying without prejudice Garrett’s motion to

compel discovery. 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 orders Garrett seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or

collateral orders. 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