Derek Jarvis v. Grady Management, Incorporated, No. 09-1428 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1428 DEREK JARVIS; SHIRLEY J. PITTMAN, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. GRADY MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED; DUFFIE, INCORPORATED; APRIL LANE JOINT VENTURES; MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT/MONTGOMERY COUNTY EXECUTIVE; MONTGOMERY COUNTY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OFFICE; MONTGOMERY COUNTY ATTORNEY S OFFICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:09-cv-00280-PJM) Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 23, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derek Jarvis, Shirley J. Pittman, Appellants Pro Se. John Benjamin Raftery, DECKELBAUM, OGENS & RAFTERY, CHARTERED, Bethesda, Maryland; Edward Barry Lattner, COUNTY ATTORNEY S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Appellants Derek Jarvis and Shirley J. Pittman seek to appeal the district court s order entered on April 8, 2009. The order granted various Defendants motions to stay discovery and motions for a more definite statement, and denied Plaintiffs motion to order Defendants to file all documents and to refile and rescan documents. 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 (1949). neither a final collateral order. The order Appellants seek to appeal is order nor an appealable interlocutory or Accordingly, we grant Appellants motion 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 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.