Brothers of the Wheel M.C. Executive Council, Inc. v. Mollohan , 546 F. App'x 188 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-1847
    BROTHERS OF THE WHEEL M.C. EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, INC., a West
    Virginia Corporation,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    GERALD R. MOLLOHAN,
    Defendant – Appellee,
    and
    JOHN DOES 1 through 50,
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Charleston.  Thomas E. Johnston,
    District Judge. (2:11-cv-00104)
    Submitted:   October 21, 2013               Decided:   November 12, 2013
    Before SHEDD and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Richard J. Lindroth, South Charleston, West              Virginia,   for
    Appellant. Gerald R. Mollohan, Appellee Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
    awarding     nominal   monetary   damages      and   denying    reconsideration
    but   leaving    its   claim   for   attorneys       fees     under   15   U.S.C.
    § 1117(a)     (2006)    unresolved       and    denying     without    prejudice
    Appellee’s request for final judgment.               This court may exercise
    jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006),
    and   certain    interlocutory     and       collateral    orders,    28   U.S.C.
    § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
    Loan Corp., 
    337 U.S. 541
    , 545-46 (1949).                  The orders Appellant
    seeks   to    appeal    are    neither       final   orders    nor    appealable
    interlocutory or collateral orders.              See Carolina Power & Light
    Co. v. Dynegy Mktg. & Trade, 
    415 F.3d 354
    , 358 (4th Cir. 2005).
    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.                  We
    deny Appellee’s pending motions as moot.               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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-1847

Citation Numbers: 546 F. App'x 188

Judges: Davis, Hamilton, Per Curiam, Shedd

Filed Date: 11/12/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/31/2023