Filed: Jan. 24, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2387 ERIC ALAN SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION; MIKE CAMPBELL; SCOTT BECK; BARBARA CHEESEBORO; SUSAN BARDEN; EUGENIA HOLLMON; VALERIE DELLER; SHAWN DEBRUHL; GARY M. CANNON, Defendants - Appellees, and AMY BRACY, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (0:18-cv-02601-JMC-PJG
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2387 ERIC ALAN SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION; MIKE CAMPBELL; SCOTT BECK; BARBARA CHEESEBORO; SUSAN BARDEN; EUGENIA HOLLMON; VALERIE DELLER; SHAWN DEBRUHL; GARY M. CANNON, Defendants - Appellees, and AMY BRACY, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (0:18-cv-02601-JMC-PJG)..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-2387
ERIC ALAN SANDERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION; MIKE
CAMPBELL; SCOTT BECK; BARBARA CHEESEBORO; SUSAN BARDEN;
EUGENIA HOLLMON; VALERIE DELLER; SHAWN DEBRUHL; GARY M.
CANNON,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
AMY BRACY,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (0:18-cv-02601-JMC-PJG)
Submitted: January 22, 2019 Decided: January 24, 2019
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Alan Sanders, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Eric Alan Sanders seeks to appeal the district court’s scheduling order and its
order directing counsel for defendants to certify their review of the court’s construction
of the complaint. 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 Sanders 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
3