Filed: Jan. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2216 HARALD SCHMIDT, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. STEVEN HUNSBERGER; JOHN BURK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:14-cv-01372-LO-TRJ; 1:14-cv-01373-LO-TRJ). Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 20, 2015 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpub
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2216 HARALD SCHMIDT, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. STEVEN HUNSBERGER; JOHN BURK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:14-cv-01372-LO-TRJ; 1:14-cv-01373-LO-TRJ). Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 20, 2015 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpubl..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2216
HARALD SCHMIDT,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
STEVEN HUNSBERGER; JOHN BURK,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:14-cv-01372-LO-TRJ; 1:14-cv-01373-LO-TRJ).
Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 20, 2015
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harald Schmidt, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Notz, COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Prince William, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Harald Schmidt seeks to appeal the district court’s
order consolidating his two civil actions. This court may
exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28
U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial
Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order
Schmidt seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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 this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2