Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Frizzell Woodson v. Megan Brennan, 18-1894 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 18-1894 Visitors: 22
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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1894 FRIZZELL CARRELL WOODSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General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
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                                    UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer