Filed: Mar. 19, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2091 RODRIGUEZ SAMUEL DA MATHA DE SANTANNA, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MARTIN O’MALLEY, Governor (first Representative of Maryland); GLENN IVEY, State’s Attorney (first Public Prosecutor of PG County); BRIAN LOFTON, Commissioner (ID#5138), Defendants – Appellees, and STATE OF MARYLAND, In care of Governor O’Malley, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander W
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2091 RODRIGUEZ SAMUEL DA MATHA DE SANTANNA, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MARTIN O’MALLEY, Governor (first Representative of Maryland); GLENN IVEY, State’s Attorney (first Public Prosecutor of PG County); BRIAN LOFTON, Commissioner (ID#5138), Defendants – Appellees, and STATE OF MARYLAND, In care of Governor O’Malley, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Wi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2091
RODRIGUEZ SAMUEL DA MATHA DE SANTANNA,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MARTIN O’MALLEY, Governor (first Representative of
Maryland); GLENN IVEY, State’s Attorney (first Public
Prosecutor of PG County); BRIAN LOFTON, Commissioner
(ID#5138),
Defendants – Appellees,
and
STATE OF MARYLAND, In care of Governor O’Malley,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:09-cv-01927-AW)
Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 19, 2010
Before NIEMEYER and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. *
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
*
The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (2006).
Rodriguez Samuel Da Matha De Santanna, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Rodriguez Samuel Da Matha De Santana seeks to appeal
the district court order dismissing his claims against one of
the four Defendants named in his suit. 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 (1949). The order De Santanna 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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3