Filed: Jun. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1118 UNDER SEAL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNDER SEAL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-01377-TSE-IDD) Submitted: June 13, 2019 Decided: June 17, 2019 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Under Seal, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1118 UNDER SEAL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNDER SEAL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-01377-TSE-IDD) Submitted: June 13, 2019 Decided: June 17, 2019 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Under Seal, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1118
UNDER SEAL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNDER SEAL,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-01377-TSE-IDD)
Submitted: June 13, 2019 Decided: June 17, 2019
Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Under Seal, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order transferring his case to the
District of New Hampshire. 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 Appellant seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See In re Carefirst of Md., Inc.,
305 F.3d
253, 256, 262 (4th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
deny appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel, and 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