Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sturdivant v. Kone Incorporated, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Carl Thomas Sturdivant appealed several district court orders to the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the orders Sturdivant sought to appeal were neither final orders under 28 U.S.C. 1291, nor interlocutory or collateral orders under 28 U.S.C. 1292 or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-04-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-1172

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Carl Thomas Sturdivant appealed several district court orders to the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the orders Sturdivant sought to appeal were neither final orders under 28 U.S.C. 1291, nor interlocutory or collateral orders under 28 U.S.C. 1292 or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    2 views2 pages

    Sturdivant v. Kone Incorporated, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Carl Thomas Sturdivant appealed several district court orders to the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the orders Sturdivant sought to appeal were neither final orders under 28 U.S.C. 1291, nor interlocutory or collateral orders under 28 U.S.C. 1292 or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-1172

    CARL THOMAS STURDIVANT,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    KONE INCORPORATED,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District
    of
    North
    Carolina,
    at
    Charlotte.
    Robert
    J.
    Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:09-cv-00224RJC-DSC)

    Submitted:

    March 29, 2010

    Decided:

    April 12, 2010

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Carl
    Thomas
    Sturdivant,
    Charlotte,
    North
    Carolina,
    for
    Appellant.
    James Michael Honeycutt, FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP,
    Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Carl Thomas Sturdivant seeks to appeal the district
    courts orders: denying his motion for judicial disqualification
    and/or recusal; dismissing his appeal of an order granting the
    Defendants motion to compel; and denying his motion to amend
    the complaint.

    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);
    (1949).

    Cohen

    order

    v.

    Beneficial

    Indus.

    Loan

    Corp.,

    U.S.

    541

    The order Sturdivant seeks to appeal is neither a final


    nor

    an

    Accordingly,

    we

    appealable
    deny

    the

    interlocutory
    motion

    for

    or

    stay

    collateral
    pending

    dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.


    oral

    337

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    order.

    appeal

    and

    We dispense with
    contentions
    the

    court

    are
    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.


    DISMISSED

    You might also like