The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
19-7150•ROBERT LOUIS GARRETT, JR., a/k/a Chubby, a/k/a Chubb, a/k/a Tru, a/k/a Kweli, a/k/a… v. Randall Fowler, Jr.
19-7150Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 18, 2019
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7150
ROBERT LOUIS GARRETT, JR., a/k/a Chubby, a/k/a Chubb, a/k/a Tru, a/k/a
Kweli, a/k/a Justice,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RANDALL FOWLER, JR.; LASLEY; WILLIAMS; DEGEORGIS; WANTONTA
GOLDEN; JEFF BILYEU; R. BLACKBURN; KENNETH MYERS; JAMES
JENNINGS; NATHAN RICE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge; Paige Jones Gossett, Magistrate
Judge. (0:18-cv-01417-CMC-PJG)
Submitted: October 15, 2019 Decided: October 18, 2019
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Louis Garrett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Robert Louis Garrett, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order affirming the
magistrate judge’s order and dismissing Garrett’s motions to compel and for sanctions and
the magistrate judge’s order denying without prejudice Garrett’s motion to compel
discovery. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The
orders Garrett seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or
collateral orders. 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.