Michael Ellis v. Kanawha County Public Library, No. 16-2244 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2244 MICHAEL ELLIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KANAWHA COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY, Defendant - Appellee, and ALAN ENGLEBERT, Director, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (2:15-cv-05698) Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: April 6, 2017 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Ellis, Appellant Pro Se. Craig W. Snethen, GORDON & REES, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Ellis seeks to appeal the district court’s order partially granting the Appellee’s motion to dismiss Ellis’ complaint and referring the matter to a magistrate judge for consideration of the remaining claim. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). to appeal is neither a final interlocutory or collateral order. The order Ellis seeks order nor an appealable Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny the Appellee’s motion for sanctions and a prefiling injunction because Ellis’ litigation does not warrant sanctions. 1997) See, e.g., Foley v. Fix, 106 F.3d 556, 558 (4th Cir. (sanctioning pro se litigant who filed 23 frivolous appeals in just over one year); Autry v. Woods, 106 F.3d 61, 63 (4th Cir. 1997) (sanctioning pro se litigant who filed more than a dozen actions in which he threatened, harassed, or demeaned women in the criminal justice system). 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 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.