Opinion
22-1025
06-27-2022
JOE LOUIS ADAMS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. 3D SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. JOE LOUIS ADAMS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. 3D SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellee JOE LOUIS ADAMS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. 3D SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellee JOE LOUIS ADAMS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. 3D SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Joe Louis Adams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Lee Sease Cluverius, Ashley Robertson Parr, Greenville, South Carolina, Nikole Setzler Mergo, NEXSEN PRUET LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: June 23, 2022
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Kevin Frank McDonald, Magistrate Judge; J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (0:19-cv-00663-JMC)
Joe Louis Adams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Jennifer Lee Sease Cluverius, Ashley Robertson Parr, Greenville, South Carolina, Nikole Setzler Mergo, NEXSEN PRUET LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WYNN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
PER CURIAM
In these consolidated appeals, Joe Louis Adams, Jr., seeks to appeal several orders in his ongoing civil action, including: the magistrate judge's order denying Adams' request to reschedule mediation; the district court's order denying Adams' request for reconsideration of the denial of additional time to respond to a prior order; the court's order scheduling a bench trial; the court's order granting summary judgment on Adams' claims to 3D Systems; the court's order granting sanctions against Adams; and the court's order setting the conditions for the bench trial. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 54546 (1949). The orders Adams seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we grant 3D Systems, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. We deny 3D Systems' motions to strike portions of the district court's docket and this Court's docket, to seal Adams' brief, to stay the appeals pending disposition of its motion to dismiss, and to expedite the decision. 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