Henry Okpala v. Computer Sciences Corporation , 636 F. App'x 878 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-1637
    HENRY UCHE OKPALA,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, CSC,
    Defendant - Appellee,
    and
    ROBIN SCHERMERHORN, CSC; DAVID H. MARTIN, CSC; WILLIAM
    SHOCKRO, CSC; CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES, CMS,
    Third Party,
    Defendants.
    No. 15-1914
    HENRY UCHE OKPALA,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, CSC,
    Defendant - Appellee,
    and
    ROBIN SCHERMERHORN, CSC; DAVID H. MARTIN, CSC; WILLIAM
    SHOCKRO, CSC; CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES, CMS,
    Third Party,
    Defendants.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
    of Maryland, at Baltimore.  J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
    Judge. (1:13-cv-03614-JFM)
    Submitted:   November 30, 2015           Decided:    January 20, 2016
    Before WYNN and    DIAZ,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    No. 15-1637 dismissed; No. 15-1914 affirmed by unpublished per
    curiam opinion.
    Henry Uche Okpala, Appellant Pro Se.     Frank Daniel Wood, Jr.,
    KULLMAN FIRM, Birmingham, Alabama, Joseph Richard Ward, III,
    KULLMAN LAW FIRM, New Orleans, Louisiana, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    In these consolidated appeals, Henry Uche Okpala seeks to
    appeal    the     district     court’s    orders    denying    his   motion      for
    recusal     and    granting     summary    judgment    to    Computer     Sciences
    Corporation (“CSC”).
    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 district court’s recusal order is neither a
    final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in No. 15-1637 for lack of
    jurisdiction. ∗
    ∗ The fact that final judgment issued while this appeal was
    pending does not give us jurisdiction over this appeal because
    the district court’s recusal order was not an order that could
    have been followed by the immediate issuance of partial final
    judgment.   In re Bryson, 
    406 F.3d 284
    , 288 (4th Cir. 2005)
    (“[Appellate] Rule 4(a)(2) does not allow a premature notice of
    appeal from a clearly interlocutory decision . . . to serve as a
    notice of appeal from the final judgment.” (internal quotation
    marks omitted)).
    Additionally, to the extent Okpala’s informal briefs in No.
    15-1637 could be construed as a request for a writ of mandamus
    or No. 15-1914 could be construed as challenging the denial of
    Okpala’s recusal motions, Okpala has failed to establish a valid
    basis for recusal.    See Belue v. Leventhal, 
    640 F.3d 567
    , 573
    (4th Cir. 2011) (“[J]udicial rulings and opinions formed by the
    judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in
    the   course   of   the   current  proceedings,   or  of   prior
    proceedings[,] almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias
    (Continued)
    3
    In No. 15-1914, Okpala appeals the district court’s order
    granting summary            judgment           to    CSC.        Okpala      contends         that    (1)
    CSC’s motion for summary judgment was untimely, and (2) he was
    denied adequate opportunity for discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P.
    56(d).     Upon review of the record, we conclude that the summary
    judgment       motion       was    timely           because      it   was     filed       within      the
    deadline set by the district court in its May 4, 2015 order.
    See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b) (“Unless a different time is set by
    local rule or the court orders otherwise, a party may file a
    motion for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after the
    close     of     all         discovery.”              (emphasis         added));           see       also
    Fayetteville Inv’rs v. Commercial Builders, Inc., 
    936 F.2d 1462
    ,
    1469    (4th    Cir.    1991)           (“An    interlocutory           order       is    subject     to
    reconsideration         at        any    time        prior    to      the    entry       of    a   final
    judgment.”).           We    also        conclude         that     Okpala         was    given     ample
    opportunity for discovery but refused to engage in the discovery
    process according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
    that,    in    any   event,         Okpala          has   not     shown      how    the       requested
    discovery       could       enable        him       to    overcome          the    ample      evidence
    submitted by CSC.            Pisano v. Strach, 
    743 F.3d 927
    , 931 (4th Cir.
    or partiality motion.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see
    also In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 
    860 F.2d 135
    , 138 (4th
    Cir. 1988) (holding that mandamus relief is available only if
    “petitioner has shown a clear right to the relief sought”).
    4
    2014) (“[A] court may deny a Rule 56(d) motion [for further
    discovery]      when     the    information       sought     would   not   by    itself
    create    a    genuine    issue      of    material    fact    sufficient       for   the
    nonmovant to survive summary judgment.”).                     Therefore, we affirm
    the district court’s grant of summary judgment to CSC.
    Accordingly, in No. 15-1637, we dismiss the appeal for lack
    of   jurisdiction,       and    in   No.    15-1914,    we    affirm   the   district
    court’s judgment.          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.
    No. 15-1637 DISMISSED
    No. 15-1914 AFFIRMED
    5