Filed: Feb. 21, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-3062 DAVID E. TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRESH FIELDS MARKET, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-55-C) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpub
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-3062 DAVID E. TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRESH FIELDS MARKET, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-55-C) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpubl..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-3062
DAVID E. TAYLOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
FRESH FIELDS MARKET, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (CA-94-55-C)
Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 21, 1996
Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David E. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Patrick Murphy, Michael
Frank Marino, REED, SMITH, SHAW & MCCLAY, McLean, Virginia; Eric
Anthony Welter, REED, SMITH, SHAW & MCCLAY, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order affirming
the magistrate judge's disposition of Appellant's discovery motions
for expenses, for sanctions, and for a change i the location of his
deposition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because
the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction
only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain inter-
locutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541
(1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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