Aaron Holsey v. Corless Alston, individually

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1837
AARON HOLSEY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CORLESS ALSTON, individually and as acting deputy director
of the Department of Rental and Assisted Housing; D.
MILLER-FORD, individually and as a staff member of the
Housing Authority of Baltimore City; PAUL T. GRAZIANO,
individually and as executive director of the Housing
Authority of Baltimore City; ERICA MANCE, individually and
as property manager of Belleview Manchester Apartments;
FELICIA MARTIN, individually and as office manager for the
CSI Support and Development Services (Coop); BRANDON MOSS,
individually and as building liaison for the CSI Support
and Development Services (Coop); CHERYL ROSS, individually
and as regional manager for the CSI Support and Development
Services (Coop); MONIQUE STARK, individually and as senior
building accountant for the CSI Support and Development
Services (Coop); CSI SUPPORT AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
(COOP); THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF BALTIMORE CITY,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
THE TOWNER MANAGEMENT COMPANY; D AND L REPORTING SERVICES,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-00994-GLR)

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Submitted: November 4, 2013 Decided: November 21, 2013
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aaron Holsey, Appellant Pro Se. Carrie Blackburn Riley,
Baltimore, Maryland; Nathan Daniel Adler, Brian M. Boyle,
NEUBERGER, QUINN, GIELEN, RUBIN & GIBBER, PA, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Aaron Holsey seeks to appeal the district court’s
order granting in part and denying in part Holsey’s motion for
an extension of time to respond to the Defendants’ motions to
dismiss. 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 order Holsey seeks to appeal is neither a final
order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
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

-- 3 of 3 --