the Travelers Indemnity Company v. DEEPAK RAJANI; TRAVELLERS.COM, an Internet domain name

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1827
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEEPAK RAJANI; TRAVELLERS.COM, an Internet domain name,
Defendants – Appellants
DEAR!NET ONLINE E.K.
Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:10-cv-00448-LO-JFA)
Submitted: January 30, 2012 Decided: February 16, 2012
Before KING, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Deepak Rajani, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Hanley Bald, Anna
Bonny Chauvet, FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP,
Washington, DC, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Deepak Rajani seeks to appeal several orders of the
district court regarding The Travelers Indemnity Company’s
(“Travelers”) action against him and his website TRAVELLERS.COM.
In his notice of appeal filed on August 4, 2011, Rajani seeks to
appeal five district court orders: the two orders entered on
July 5, 2011, and the orders entered on July 11, 2011, July 14,
2011, and July 29, 2011.
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). None of the orders from which Rajani appeals are
final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.
Thus, we grant Travelers’ motion to dismiss in part Rajani’s
appeal of the first four district court orders as interlocutory.
This leaves the July 29, 2011 order in which the district court
granted Travelers’ motion for partial summary judgment. The
July 29 order is also interlocutory. Thus, we dismiss the
remainder of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny the
parties’ remaining pending motions as moot and dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

-- 2 of 3 --

3
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --