STEVEN-GLENN: JOHNSON and STEVEN GLENN JOHNSON v. the State of North Carolina

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1271
STEVEN-GLENN: JOHNSON and STEVEN GLENN JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL RESERVE, And all those
similarly situated,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (4:14-cv-00050-FL)
Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: October 22, 2015
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven Glenn Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Olga Eugenia Vysotskaya
de Brito, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee. Matthew Fesak, Assistant United States Attorney,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Defendants.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Steven Glenn Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order granting North Carolina’s motion to set aside entry of
default judgment and denying his ancillary motions and the
court’s text order denying Johnson’s motion to alter or amend
the judgment and his companion motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e). 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 Johnson seeks to appeal are neither final
orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.
Accordingly, we deny Johnson’s pending motions to reconsider
designation of the parties, to reset the appellate timetable,
and to abate the appeal; deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis; and 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 --