UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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