Joe Louis Adams, Jr. v. 3d Systems, Inc.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1025
JOE LOUIS ADAMS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
3D SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 22-1289
JOE LOUIS ADAMS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
3D SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 22-1301
JOE LOUIS ADAMS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,

-- 1 of 3 --

2
v.
3D SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 22-1372
JOE LOUIS ADAMS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
3D SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Kevin Frank McDonald, Magistrate Judge; J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (0:19-
cv-00663-JMC)
Submitted: June 23, 2022 Decided: June 27, 2022
Before WYNN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joe Louis Adams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Lee Sease Cluverius, Ashley Robertson
Parr, Greenville, South Carolina, Nikole Setzler Mergo, NEXSEN PRUET LLC,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Joe Louis Adams, Jr., seeks to appeal several orders
in his ongoing civil action, including: the magistrate judge’s order denying Adams’ request
to reschedule mediation; the district court’s order denying Adams’ request for
reconsideration of the denial of additional time to respond to a prior order; the court’s order
scheduling a bench trial; the court’s order granting summary judgment on Adams’ claims
to 3D Systems; the court’s order granting sanctions against Adams; and the court’s order
setting the conditions for the bench trial. 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 Adams seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable
interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we grant 3D Systems, Inc.’s motion to
dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. We deny 3D Systems’ motions to strike
portions of the district court’s docket and this Court’s docket, to seal Adams’ brief, to stay
the appeals pending disposition of its motion to dismiss, and to expedite the decision. 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 --