Filed: Jan. 09, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7619 ANDREE ELLERTON ALBERT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, District Director, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-1845-AW) Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: January 9, 2002 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7619 ANDREE ELLERTON ALBERT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, District Director, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-1845-AW) Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: January 9, 2002 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per c..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7619
ANDREE ELLERTON ALBERT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
District Director,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-01-1845-AW)
Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: January 9, 2002
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andree Ellerton Albert, Appellant Pro Se. George W. Maugans,
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Andree Ellerton Albert appeals from the district court’s order
granting the Respondent’s motion to stay proceedings. We dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not
appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541 (1949). The
order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order.
We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2