Zellinger v. Control Services Inc ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-1170
    JAMES A. ZELLINGER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    CONTROL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, a Louisiana
    Corporation; LUV N’ CARE, LIMITED, a Louisiana
    Corporation; N. E. HAKIM, an Individual,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
    Chief District Judge. (CA-01-3)
    Submitted:   July 23, 2003                 Decided:   August 27, 2003
    Before LUTTIG, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James A. Zellinger, Appellant Pro Se. John L. Monroe, Jr., Florence
    Valerie Rusk, FORD & HARRISON, Atlanta, Georgia; Grayson Lawrence
    Reeves, Jr., Charles Atlee Madison, PATTERSON, DILTHEY, CLAY &
    BRYSON, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    James A. Zellinger seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    transferring his case to the Western District of Louisiana because
    the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Appellees.
    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 order
    Zellinger   seeks      to   appeal     is   neither   a   final    order    nor   an
    appealable interlocutory or collateral order.               See In re Carefirst
    of Md., Inc., 
    305 F.3d 253
    , 262 (4th Cir. 2002).                  Accordingly, we
    grant   Appellees’      motion    to    dismiss     the   appeal    for    lack   of
    jurisdiction.    We deny Zellinger’s motion to file a formal brief.
    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: 03-1170

Filed Date: 8/27/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021