Summary
dismissing appeal of order staying discovery for lack of jurisdiction because the order was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order
Summary of this case from Das v. HassaniOpinion
No. 10-7675.
Submitted: March 15, 2011.
Decided: March 18, 2011.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (4:10-cv-00433-HFF).
Ernesto Poux, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Ernesto Poux, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court's text order entered November 19, 2010, granting Defendants' motion to stay discovery. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Poux seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.