Filed: Jan. 24, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2185 JEFFREY THOMAS FARMER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL V. HAYDEN; NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District Court of Columbia, at Washington, D.C. James Robertson, District Judge. (05-MC-314-JR) Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 24, 2006 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2185 JEFFREY THOMAS FARMER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL V. HAYDEN; NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District Court of Columbia, at Washington, D.C. James Robertson, District Judge. (05-MC-314-JR) Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 24, 2006 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2185 JEFFREY THOMAS FARMER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL V. HAYDEN; NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District Court of Columbia, at Washington, D.C. James Robertson, District Judge. (05-MC-314-JR) Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 24, 2006 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Thomas Farmer, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Thomas Farmer filed a notice of appeal in the District Court for the District of Columbia and requested the appeal be transferred to this Court. Because Farmer is not appealing a final order or judgment emanating from a court over which this court has jurisdiction, we are without jurisdiction. Accordingly, we deny Farmer’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 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 -
