Huguette Assaf v. Arlington County Sheriff's Office

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: September 2, 2025
• Docket: 25-1152
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1152 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1152

HUGUETTE ASSAF, individually and on behalf of all other occupants,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ARLINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; CLERK OF ARLINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT; HONORABLE DANIEL TOMAS CROWE LOPEZ; HONORABLE JUDITH L. WHEAT; HONORABLE JASON S. RUCKER; J. LY PHAN; JIMMIE BARRETT; STANDBY DEPUTIES,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:24-cv-02264-LMB-LRV)

Submitted: August 28, 2025 Decided: September 2, 2025

Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Huguette Assaf, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1152 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Huguette Assaf seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing some of the

claims in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 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 order Assaf seeks to appeal did not resolve

all of her claims as to all parties and is therefore neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral order. See Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 193 (4th Cir. 2022)

(noting an order is not final “until it has resolved all claims as to all parties” (citation

modified)). Accordingly, we deny Assaf’s motion to assign counsel 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 this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED