Jeffrey Cohen v. Rod Rosenstein
This text of 691 F. App'x 724 (Jeffrey Cohen v. Rod Rosenstein) 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.
Opinion
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Jeffrey Brian Cohen seeks to appeal the district court’s order staying his civil suit against federal prosecutors pending resolution of his criminal direct appeal, as well aé its order granting in part and denying in part Cohen’s motion for reconsideration. As a threshold inquiry to any appeal, we are obliged to satisfy ourselves of our jurisdiction to hear the matter. See Clark v. Cartledge, 829 F.3d 303, 305 (4th Cir. 2016); United States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d *725 237, 246 (4th Cir. 2011). We may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 64(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The orders Cohen seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. See Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 11 n.11, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983); Amdur v. Lizars, 372 F.2d 103, 105-06 (4th Cir. 1967). 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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
691 F. App'x 724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeffrey-cohen-v-rod-rosenstein-ca4-2017.