Paul Shao v. Allstate Insurance Company

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1190
PAUL SHAO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 24-1204
PAUL SHAO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. William Edward Fitzpatrick, Magistrate Judge. (1:23-cv-00809-RDA-WEF)
Submitted: September 30, 2024 Decided: October 22, 2024

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul Shao, Appellant Pro Se. Katie M. Burnett, James Scott Humphrey, BENESCH,
FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARNOFF, LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Paul Shao seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s orders ruling on Shao’s Motion for
Leave to File Second Amended Complaint and on the parties’ multiple discovery-related
motions. 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). None of the
appealed-from orders end the subject litigation on its merits or are immediately appealable
collateral orders, see Bridges v. Dep’t of Md. State Police, 441 F.3d 197, 206 (4th Cir.
2006) (holding that order denying motion to amend complaint “is not a final order, nor
. . . an appealable interlocutory or collateral order”); Nicholas v. Wyndham Int’l, Inc., 373
F.3d 537, 541 (4th Cir. 2004) (“Discovery orders are inherently interlocutory and typically
not appealable.” (internal quotation marks omitted)), and the appeals were not certified
under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for want 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 --