Meineke Car Care Centers, Inc. v. Joseph E. Glover

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1127
MEINEKE CAR CARE CENTERS, INC.,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH E. GLOVER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:10-cv-00667-FDW-DCK)
Submitted: August 24, 2011 Decided: September 13, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Joseph E. Glover, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Kathleen Reynolds,
Deputy General Counsel, Ted P. Pearce, DRIVEN BRANDS, INC.,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Joseph E. Glover appeals the district court’s order
granting a preliminary injunction to Meineke Car Care Centers,
Inc. We review the district court’s order for abuse of
discretion. Planned Parenthood of Blue Ridge v. Camblos, 155
F.3d 352, 359 (4th Cir. 1998) (en banc). We conclude the
district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s order.
Glover also challenges the district court’s
disposition of his argument that venue did not lie in the
Western District of North Carolina. 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 (1949). The district court’s
determination of venue is not a final or appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss
these arguments 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

-- 2 of 2 --