Budik v. Brazaitis

397 F. App'x 868
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 13, 2010·No. No. 09-2392·Published

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Edith Budik seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the motion to substitute the United States as defendant in this civil action. This court 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, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Budik seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Maron v. United States, 126 F.3d 317, 321 n. 4 (4th Cir.1997). 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.

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

Budik v. Brazaitis, 397 F. App'x 868 (4th Cir. 2010).

397 F. App'x 868 (Budik v. Brazaitis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related