Donat Porter v. Merrick Garland, No. 21-1094 (4th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-1094 DONAT CALEB PORTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General; JOSHUA STEIN, Attorney General of North Carolina; ROXANN VANEEKHOVEN; JENNIFER M. TAYLOR; CASEY E. WALLACE; MARTIN B. MCGEE; DAVID BRENT CLONINGER; BENJAMIN G. GOFF; VAN SHAW; DAVID BRADSON RILEY; JOSH W. HELMS; JAMES N. BAILEY; KEVIN PFISTER; DUSTIN GROOMS; JAMES ROMINGER; CITY OF CONCORD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:20-cv-00573-LCB-JEP) Submitted: April 22, 2021 Decided: April 27, 2021 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donat Caleb Porter, Appellant Pro Se. Brandon D. Zeller, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina; Richard Martin Koch, LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD M. KOCH, PA, Charlotte, North Carolina; Zachary Scott Anstett, Patrick Houghton Flanagan, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Donat Caleb Porter seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying Porter’s motions to extend the deadline to file his reply brief and to expand the page limitations and the magistrate judge’s order denying Porter’s motions for a pretrial conference and to compel discovery requests. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The orders Porter seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. 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

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.