Jarmuth v. Waters , 149 F. App'x 139 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-1464
    RONALD E. JARMUTH,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    KATHLEEN R. WATERS; JAMES M. FRINZI,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-04-63-IMK)
    Submitted:   August 17, 2005             Decided:   September 1, 2005
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ronald E. Jarmuth, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Andrew Coppula,
    TUCKER ARENSBERG, P.C., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Ronald E. Jarmuth seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order dismissing his civil action as to Defendant Kathleen Waters
    for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissing for failure to
    state a claim some but not all of the claims against Defendant
    James Frinzi.   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
     (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).      We
    lack jurisdiction because the order here appealed is neither a
    final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
    See Robinson v. Parke-Davis & Co., 
    685 F.2d 912
    , 913 (4th Cir.
    1982).   We likewise deny Jarmuth’s motion to treat the notice of
    appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus, as Jarmuth may appeal
    the district court’s adverse order upon final judgment.   See In re
    Catawba Indian Tribe, 
    973 F.2d 1133
    , 1135-36 (4th Cir. 1992); In re
    Beard, 
    811 F.2d 818
    , 826 (4th Cir. 1987).
    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: 05-1464

Citation Numbers: 149 F. App'x 139

Judges: Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Traxler, Williams

Filed Date: 9/1/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023