Ballah v. Barnhart

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 7, 2005
Docket05-1298
StatusUnpublished

This text of Ballah v. Barnhart (Ballah v. Barnhart) 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
Ballah v. Barnhart, (4th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1298

JUNE BALLAH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-04-2473-SB-BM)

Submitted: August 29, 2005 Decided: September 7, 2005

Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

June Ballah, Appellant Pro Se. Bonnie Evelyn Sims, Assistant Regional Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

June Ballah appeals the Commissioner of Social Security’s

(“Commissioner”) denial of her application for Supplemental Social

Security Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act,

42 U.S.C. §§ 1381 to 1383f (2000). This court may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and

certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292

(2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan

Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

Ballah’s complaint seeking review of the Commissioner’s

decision remains pending in the district court; the district court

has yet to issue an order in connection with Ballah’s case that is

a final order or an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Accordingly, we 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

- 2 -

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

Related

Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.
337 U.S. 541 (Supreme Court, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ballah v. Barnhart, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ballah-v-barnhart-ca4-2005.