Filed: Nov. 19, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1894 FRIZZELL CARRELL WOODSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General United States Postal Service, Agency, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:17-cv-00748-HEH) Submitted: November 15, 2018 Decided: November 19, 2018 Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1894 FRIZZELL CARRELL WOODSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General United States Postal Service, Agency, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:17-cv-00748-HEH) Submitted: November 15, 2018 Decided: November 19, 2018 Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior C..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1894
FRIZZELL CARRELL WOODSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General United States Postal Service, Agency,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:17-cv-00748-HEH)
Submitted: November 15, 2018 Decided: November 19, 2018
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frizzell Carrell Woodson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Frizzell Carrell Woodson seeks to appeal the district court’s order closing his case
and consolidating the proceedings for Woodson to show cause why the court should not
impose a prefiling injunction against him for filing numerous frivolous complaints. 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 Woodson 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 deny Woodson’s motion
for default judgment. 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