Michael Star v. the Warehouse Bar

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1807
MICHAEL STAR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE WAREHOUSE BAR AND GRILLE; HOUSSEIN PRICHARD; PRASERT
RAUMATHONG; TSEGAYE TEDESSE; PEPE VASQUEZ,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. John Foster Anderson, Magistrate Judge. (1:20-cv-00950-JFA)
Submitted: May 26, 2022 Decided: June 29, 2022
Before WYNN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Star, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Michael Star seeks to appeal the district court’s∗ interlocutory orders granting in
part Appellees’ motion for sanctions and reaffirming on reconsideration the imposition of
sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. We are obliged to inquire into our own jurisdiction,
even when the parties do not dispute it. Williamson v. Stirling, 912 F.3d 154, 168 (4th Cir.
2018). We 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 Star seeks to appeal
are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. See In re
Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 666 F.2d 55, 58 (4th Cir. 1981) (per curiam). Although the
district court granted Star’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice, we
adhere to “the long-settled principle that . . . no appeal lies from a judgment of voluntary
nonsuit.” Keena v. Groupon, Inc., 886 F.3d 360, 365 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation
marks omitted); see also Affinity Living Grp., LLC v. StarStone Specialty Ins. Co., 959 F.3d
634, 637-39 (4th Cir. 2020) (discussing appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory orders
following voluntary dismissal). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
∗ The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --