Dan Gramatic v. Kilolo Kijakazi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 20, 2022
• Docket: 22-1369
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1369 Doc: 19 Filed: 10/20/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1369

DAN C. GRAMATIC,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-00903-CMH-TCB)

Submitted: October 18, 2022 Decided: October 20, 2022

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dan C. Gramatic, Appellant Pro Se. Meghan Elizabeth Loftus, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1369 Doc: 19 Filed: 10/20/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Dan C. Gramatic seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying his self-styled

motion to continue disability benefit payments and the district court’s order transferring

his case to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. This court may

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan

Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The orders Gramatic seeks to appeal are neither final

orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. See TechnoSteel, LLC v. Beers

Constr. Co., 271 F.3d 151, 160-161 (4th Cir. 2001) (holding that court of appeals lacks

jurisdiction to review transfer order once case file is transferred to court outside circuit and

nonappealable interlocutory or collateral decisions also transfer with case). 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 this court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED