Price v. First Star Mortgage

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 9, 2004
Docket04-1032
StatusUnpublished

This text of Price v. First Star Mortgage (Price v. First Star Mortgage) 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
Price v. First Star Mortgage, (4th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1032

VALARIE PRICE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FIRST STAR MORTGAGE, a/k/a US Bank; ANTHONY J. CORCINI, Secretary Department of Veterans Affairs; SAMUEL I. WHITE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CA-03-568-2)

Submitted: May 28, 2004 Decided: September 9, 2004

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Valarie Price, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan L. Hauser, TROUTMAN SANDERS, L.L.P., Virginia Beach, Virginia, George Maralan Kelley, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Valarie Price seeks to appeal the district court’s order

directing Price to inform the court of the basis of its subject

matter jurisdiction over Price’s claim against the Secretary of the

Department of Veterans Affairs. 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). The order Price seeks to appeal is

neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral

order. 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

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. The

motion to place this case in abeyance and the motion to correct the

district court record are denied.

DISMISSED

- 2 -

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)
Price v. First Star Mortgage, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/price-v-first-star-mortgage-ca4-2004.