Jacobs v. Shi, No. 05-1858 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1858 SAMUEL K. JACOBS; NANCY HECKERMAN, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus YU FAN; YELIN SHI, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-04-1379-1) Submitted: November 28, 2005 Decided: January 4, 2006 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel K. Jacobs; Nancy Heckerman, Appellants Pro Se. Sidney Stafford Friedman, WEINSTOCK, FRIEDMAN & FRIEDMAN, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Samuel K. Jacobs and Nancy Heckerman ( Appellants ) appeal the district court s judgment granting the Appellees motion to dismiss and entering a judgment in the Appellees favor on their breach of contract claim and granting the Appellees motion for sanctions. We have reviewed the record and affirm. Insofar as the Appellants challenge motion the order denying their for a continuance and the order compelling discovery, the orders are not reviewable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Sunview Condominium Ass n v. Flexel Intern., Ltd., 116 F.3d 962, 964-65 (1st Cir. 1997). With respect to the Appellants claim they were denied their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, we find any error is harmless as their complaint was dismissed on the Appellees motion to dismiss, obviating the need for a trial. Finally, there was no error in the district court s order referring the motion for a change of magistrate judge to the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 144 (2000). Accordingly, we affirm. 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 - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.