USCA4 Appeal: 24-1190 Doc: 28 Filed: 10/22/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1190 Doc: 28 Filed: 10/22/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1190 Doc: 28 Filed: 10/22/2024 Pg: 3 of 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,

,

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,

; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,

(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,

(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.,

, 541 (4th Cir. 2004) (“Discovery orders are inherently interlocutory and typically

not appealable.” (internal quotation marks omitted)), and the appeals were not certified

under

(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