Glenn Myer v. Uriah Kennedy, No. 18-1792 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1792 GLENN MYER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. URIAH KENNEDY; GENTOX MEDICAL SERVICES; CHRIS SEYMOUR, individual and official capacities, Regional Manager; MATT RIDDLE, individual and official capacities, Director of Distributors; I. L. PALENCIA, O.F.C., individual and official capacities; TAJWEER BEAUFORT, PFC, individual and official capacities; MIKE PORTER, SGT, individual and official capacities; FAIRFAX COUNTY; FAIRFAX COUNTY GOVERNMENT, Sharon Bulova Governing Fairfax; CELLING BIOSCIENCES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:18-cv-00547-AJT-TCB) Submitted: November 29, 2018 Decided: December 3, 2018 Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glenn Myer, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Earl Barnsback, O’HAGAN MEYER PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees Matthew Riddle and Celling Biosciences Uriah Kennedy, Appellee Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Glenn Myer seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Matt Riddle’s and Celling Biosciences’ motions to dismiss claims in Myer’s amended civil complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 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). Because claims against several defendants remain pending below and the district court did not certify the order for immediate appeal, the order Myer 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