Louis D. Gibson, a/k/a L.D. Gibson v. Giles Chemical Corporation, a division of Premier Magnesia, LLC

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1519
LOUIS D. GIBSON, a/k/a L.D. Gibson,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GILES CHEMICAL CORPORATION, a division of Premier Magnesia, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cv-00394-MOC-WCM)
Submitted: August 24, 2021 Decided: August 26, 2021
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis D. Gibson, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Woodward Yarbrough, CONSTANGY
BROOKS & SMITH, LLP, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Louis D. Gibson seeks to appeal the district court’s order staying the underlying
proceedings pending arbitration in Gibson’s civil action, brought pursuant to Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, against Giles Chemical
Corporation (“Giles”).
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 appealed-from order
stayed the district court proceedings pending arbitration of Gibson’s claims; ordered the
parties to file a status update 14 days before the arbitration proceeding that detailed the
likely cost of arbitration to Gibson; and denied Gibson’s motion for summary judgment
without prejudice to Gibson refiling the motion at a later date. Consequently, we conclude
that the order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See
9 U.S.C. § 16(b); cf. Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 612-15 (4th Cir. 2020), cert.
denied, 141 S. Ct. 1376 (2021). We therefore grant Giles’ motion to dismiss and dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Gibson’s motions to appoint counsel, to
schedule oral argument, and to amend the caption. 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

-- 2 of 2 --