Jarvis v. Grady Management, Incorporated

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1451

DEREK N. JARVIS; SHIRLEY J. PITTMAN,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

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. (8:09-cv-00280-PJM)

Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: August 31, 2010
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

No. 10-1451 dismissed; No. 10-1550 petition denied by
unpublished per curiam opinion.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order

appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral 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. Kerr v.

United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re

Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Appellants have not

made such a showing. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ

of mandamus. 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