Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Roginsky v. Bragunier, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Jacob Roginsky's appeal of a district court order that dismissed his pro se complaint against two Maryland state judicial officials but allowed the case to proceed against remaining defendants. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final decision and did not fall under any exceptions that would allow an interlocutory appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as interlocutory.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-05-16 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-1354

    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 Jacob Roginsky's appeal of a district court order that dismissed his pro se complaint against two Maryland state judicial officials but allowed the case to proceed against remaining defendants. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final decision and did not fall under any exceptions that would allow an interlocutory appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as interlocutory.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    2 views3 pages

    Roginsky v. Bragunier, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Jacob Roginsky's appeal of a district court order that dismissed his pro se complaint against two Maryland state judicial officials but allowed the case to proceed against remaining defendants. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was not a final decision and did not fall under any exceptions that would allow an interlocutory appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as interlocutory.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 00-1354

    JACOB ROGINSKY,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    AMY J. BRAGUNIER, Honorable, individually and
    in her official capacity; ROBERT C. NALLEY,
    Honorable, individually and in his official
    capacity; jointly, severally and individually,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    VERONICA V. BLAKE; WILLIAM F. OLMSTED, Law
    Office of Olmsted & Olmsted; MARY SUE
    GREISMAN, Law Offices of Greisman & Carroll;
    PATRICIA N. DRUMMOND, Law Offices of Drummond
    & O'Brian; JAMES E. LEWIS, Psychology & Education Associates; THE LAW OFFICE OF OLMSTED &
    OLMSTED; THE LAW OFFICES OF GREISMAN & CARROLL; THE LAW OFFICES OF DRUMMOND & O'BRIEN;
    PSYCHOLOGY & EDUCATION ASSOCIATES,
    Defendants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
    (CA-00-348-AW)

    Submitted:

    May 11, 2000

    Decided:

    May 16, 2000

    Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Jacob Roginsky, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Jacob Roginsky appeals the district courts order dismissing
    his pro se complaint against two Maryland state judicial officials,
    but allowing the case to proceed as to the remaining Defendants.
    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 Robinson v. Parke-Davis &

    Co., 685 F.2d 912, 913 (4th Cir. 1982).


    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