Ketema v. Midwest Stamping ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-2251
    MESFIN KETEMA,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    MIDWEST STAMPING, INCORPORATED; TERRY JUDY;
    TEDD BALDWIN; CYNTHIA THOMPSON; KIMDRA BELSER,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.    Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
    District Judge. (CA-02-502-3)
    Submitted:   January 14, 2004             Decided:   February 23, 2004
    Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Mesfin Ketema, Appellant Pro Se. Derwood Lorraine Aydlette, III,
    Christina Marie Summer, GIGNILLIAT, SAVITZ & BETTIS, Columbia,
    South Carolina; Kenneth R. Young, Jr., Sumter, South Carolina, for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Mesfin Ketema seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
    denying Ketema’s motions for sanctions, removal of the magistrate
    judge and subpoenas.       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 orders Ketema seeks to appeal are neither final
    orders     nor   appealable     interlocutory   or    collateral      orders.
    Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss
    the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.         We also deny all of Ketema’s
    pending motions, including his motions for an injunction, to join
    parties, to expedite, to join claims, and for en banc review.              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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-2251

Filed Date: 2/23/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014