Derek Jarvis v. Grady Management, Incorporated, No. 10-1451 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1451 DEREK N. JARVIS; SHIRLEY J. PITTMAN, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. GRADY MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED; DUFFIE, INCORPORATED; APRIL LANE JOINT VENURES; 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) No. 10-1550 In Re: DEREK N. JARVIS; SHIRLEY J. PITTMAN, Petitioners. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: August 26, 2010 (8:09-cv-00280-PJM) Decided: August 31, 2010 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. No. 10-1451 dismissed; No. unpublished per curiam opinion. 10-1550 petition denied by Derek N. Jarvis, Shirley J. Pittman, Appellants/Petitioners Pro Se. Charles Lowell Frederick, COUNTY ATTORNEY S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland; Edward P. Henneberry, ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP, Washington, DC; John Benjamin Raftery, OFFIT KURMAN, PA, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Derek N. Jarvis and Shirley J. Pittman appeal from the district court s order, in their civil action, directing them to file a supplement to their amended complaint that contains a short, plain statement of facts, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Appellants seek to appeal this order. 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 appealed Corp., is 337 neither U.S. a 541, interlocutory or collateral order. (1949). The order final 545-46 nor appealable an order Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellants have also filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking this court to compel the district court judge to recuse himself from their proceeding below. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). made such a showing. of mandamus. 402 (1976); Kerr v. In re Appellants have not Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ We dispense with oral argument because the facts 3 and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. No. 10-1451 DISMISSED No. 10-1550 PETITION DENIED 4

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.