Hall v. United States Department of Education

Fourth Circuit

Hall v. United States Department of Education

401 F. App'x 800

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided November 24, 2010·No. No. 10-1790·Published

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Toñita Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s order informing her that all inqui[801]*801ries regarding service of process should be directed to the U.S. Marshals service. Appellees have moved to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

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 Hall seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant Appellees’ motion 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

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Toñita Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s order informing her that all inqui[801]*801ries regarding service of process should be directed to the U.S. Marshals service. Appellees have moved to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

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 Hall seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant Appellees’ motion 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.

Hall v. United States Department of Education, 401 F. App'x 800 (4th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

401 F. App'x 800 (Hall v. United States Department of Education) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related