The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
20-1837•Derrick Michael Allen, Sr. v. Rentgrow, Inc.; Anant Yardi; Gordon Morrell; Corporation Service Company
20-1837Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitDec 7, 2020
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1837
DERRICK MICHAEL ALLEN, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RENTGROW, INC.; ANANT YARDI; GORDON MORRELL; CORPORATION
SERVICE COMPANY,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 20-2014
DERRICK MICHAEL ALLEN, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RENTGROW, INC.; ANANT YARDI; GORDON MORRELL; CORPORATION
SERVICE COMPANY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cv-00256-TDS-LPA)
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Submitted: November 23, 2020 Decided: December 7, 2020
Before KING and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Derrick Michael Allen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Richard Wyatt Andrews II, Jeffrey Scott
Southerland, TUGGLE DUGGINS, PA, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Derrick Michael Allen, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing
three of the four defendants in this civil action. 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 Allen seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable
interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we deny Allen’s motions for a transcript
at government expense and dismiss the appeals 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.