Alberts v. Wheeling Jesuit University

363 F. App'x 276
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 29, 2010
Docket09-2181
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 363 F. App'x 276 (Alberts v. Wheeling Jesuit University) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alberts v. Wheeling Jesuit University, 363 F. App'x 276 (4th Cir. 2010).

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Stephen Alan Alberts, II, seeks to appeal an order entered by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and transferring his case to the Northern District of West Virginia. Because the order Alberts seeks to appeal was entered by the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, an appeal from an order of that court may only be taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which embraces that district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1294 (2006). Accordingly, this court cannot consider Alberts’s challenge to the transfer order.

Further, we decline to transfer this appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2006), when an appeal is noticed for a circuit court, and the court finds “that there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any other such court in which the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed.” We conclude, however, that while there is a want of jurisdiction in this court, transfer to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is not in the interest of justice because Alberts’s appeal is otherwise interlocutory. Circuit courts may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Alberts 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, 255-56 (4th Cir.2002); Carteret Sav. Bank v. Shushan, 919 F.2d 225, 230 (3d Cir. 1990) (holding 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (2006) transfer order is not an appealable collateral order).

*278 Accordingly, we deny Alberts’s motion to find for damages in his favor 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Alberts v. Wheeling Jesuit University
176 L. Ed. 2d 1200 (Supreme Court, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
363 F. App'x 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alberts-v-wheeling-jesuit-university-ca4-2010.