Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Flossie Duku v. SSA, 19-1729 (2019)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-1729 Visitors: 12
Filed: Nov. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1729 FLOSSIE A. OBBO DUKU; D.D.1; D.D.2, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00383-AJT-IDD) Submitted: November 21, 2019 Decided: November 25, 2019 Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unp
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 19-1729


FLOSSIE A. OBBO DUKU; D.D.1; D.D.2,

                    Plaintiffs - Appellants,

             v.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

                    Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00383-AJT-IDD)


Submitted: November 21, 2019                                Decided: November 25, 2019


Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Flossie A. Obbo Duku, D.D.1, D.D.2, Appellants Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Flossie Duku seeks to appeal the district court’s order cancelling a scheduled

hearing on Appellees’ motion to dismiss her civil action.       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 Duku seeks to appeal is neither

a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and grant Appellees’ motion to 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

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