Filed: Feb. 23, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1012 MARK A. WARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PETER E. MALONEY, Plan Administrator, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Russell A. Eliason, Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-467) Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: February 23, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark A. Ward, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1012 MARK A. WARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PETER E. MALONEY, Plan Administrator, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Russell A. Eliason, Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-467) Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: February 23, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark A. Ward, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1012
MARK A. WARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PETER E. MALONEY, Plan Administrator,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Russell A. Eliason,
Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-467)
Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: February 23, 2004
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark A. Ward, Appellant Pro Se. John Edward Pueschel, WOMBLE,
CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, P.L.L.C., Winston-Salem, North Carolina;
William McCardell Furr, John T. McDonald, WILLCOX & SAVAGE,
Norfolk, Virginia; Lucretia Smith Guia, HAYNSWORTH, BALDWIN,
JOHNSON & GREAVES, L.L.C., Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mark A. Ward seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order
denying his motion for sanctions, delineating discovery, and
granting the defendant’s motion for a protective order. 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 Ward 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 -