Donald McDuffin Williams v. DETECTIVE J. MOUTON; OFFICER TUBMAN; ANTON JOHNSON, P.G. County Police, Brentwood

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7198
DONALD MCDUFFIN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DETECTIVE J. MOUTON; OFFICER TUBMAN; ANTON JOHNSON, P.G.
County Police, Brentwood,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
LORD BALTIMORE HOTEL,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:16-cv-02508-PJM; 1:16-cr-00165-GLR-1)
Submitted: February 6, 2018 Decided: February 21, 2018
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Donald McDuffin Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Melissa Goldmeier, Gary W. Kuc, Louis
Paul Ruzzi, HOWARD COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Ellicott City, Maryland; Bernard
Allen Cook, LAW OFFICES OF BERNARD A. COOK, LLC, Columbia, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Donald McDuffin Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s orders staying his
civil case pending resolution of his criminal case and returning documents. Appellees
have moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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). The orders that Williams seeks to
appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. See
Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 10 n.11 (1983);
Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015); Amdur v. Lizars, 372 F.2d 103, 105-06
(4th Cir. 1967). Accordingly, we grant Appellees’ motion to dismiss, deny Williams’
pending motions, and 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 of 3 --