Johnson v. Rumsfeld

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 13, 2002
Docket02-1643
StatusUnpublished

This text of Johnson v. Rumsfeld (Johnson v. Rumsfeld) 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.

Bluebook
Johnson v. Rumsfeld, (4th Cir. 2002).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1643

GWENDOLYN H. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DONALD RUMSFELD, Secretary, U.S. Department of Defense,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-45-A)

Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 13, 2002

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gwendolyn H. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Parker, Rachel Celia Ballow, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Gwendolyn H. Johnson filed a notice of appeal in her civil

action, which remains pending in the district court. Johnson

states that she seeks to appeal a district court order entered on

June 7, 2002, but there is no such order. This court may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and

certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292

(2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan

Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). Because the order Johnson seeks to

appeal does not exist and because there is neither a final order

nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, 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

Related

Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.
337 U.S. 541 (Supreme Court, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Johnson v. Rumsfeld, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-rumsfeld-ca4-2002.