Filed: Oct. 13, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2392 EDITH BUDIK, MD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL P. BRAZAITIS, Defendant – Appellee, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Movant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (1:09-cv-03079-BEL) Submitted: August 31, 2010 Decided: October 13, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2392 EDITH BUDIK, MD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL P. BRAZAITIS, Defendant – Appellee, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Movant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (1:09-cv-03079-BEL) Submitted: August 31, 2010 Decided: October 13, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2392
EDITH BUDIK, MD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL P. BRAZAITIS,
Defendant – Appellee,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Movant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District
Judge. (1:09-cv-03079-BEL)
Submitted: August 31, 2010 Decided: October 13, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edith Budik, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Larry David Adams, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Edith Budik seeks to appeal the district court’s order
granting the motion to substitute the United States as defendant
in this civil action. This court may exercise jurisdiction only
over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Budik seeks to appeal is
neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. See Maron v. United States,
126 F.3d 317, 321
n.4 (4th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction. 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