Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Hines v. US Government, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Priscilla Hines' appeal of a district court order that remanded her social security benefits suit back to the Commissioner of Social Security. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's remand order was not a final order and did not fall under the limited categories of interlocutory or collateral orders that can be appealed. As the order was not final and did not meet the criteria for an appealable interim order, the court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-12-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-1925

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Priscilla Hines' appeal of a district court order that remanded her social security benefits suit back to the Commissioner of Social Security. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's remand order was not a final order and did not fall under the limited categories of interlocutory or collateral orders that can be appealed. As the order was not final and did not meet the criteria for an appealable interim order, the court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    3 views2 pages

    Hines v. US Government, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Priscilla Hines' appeal of a district court order that remanded her social security benefits suit back to the Commissioner of Social Security. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's remand order was not a final order and did not fall under the limited categories of interlocutory or collateral orders that can be appealed. As the order was not final and did not meet the criteria for an appealable interim order, the court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 00-1925

    PRISCILLA HINES,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT; SOCIAL SECURITY
    AGENCY; KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF
    SOCIAL SECURITY; PAUL D. BARNES; SANDY CRANKS;
    WILLIAM WAXMAN, Director; RITA GELER, Commissioner; DEBORAH MORRIS, Judge; CAROLYN W.
    NEYMAN, Regional Commissioner; GORDON SHERMAN,
    Region 4 Commissioner,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-626-5-BO)

    Submitted:

    December 8, 2000

    Decided:

    December 19, 2000

    Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Priscilla Hines, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Dickerson Kocher, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Priscilla Hines appeals the district courts order remanding
    her suit seeking social security benefits to the Commissioner of
    Social Security.

    We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction

    because the order is not appealable.

    This court may exercise

    jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (1994), and


    certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292
    (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
    Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

    The order here appealed is neither a

    final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.


    See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 297-98 (1993).
    Thus, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.

    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

    You might also like