From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cohen v. Rosenstein

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jun 8, 2017
No. 16-7313 (4th Cir. Jun. 8, 2017)

Opinion

No. 16-7313

06-08-2017

JEFFREY BRIAN COHEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROD J. ROSENSTEIN, US Attorney; HARRY MASON GRUBER, Asst. US Attorney; JOYCE KALLAM MCDONALD, Asst. US Attorney, Defendants - Appellees.

Jeffrey Brian Cohen, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Paul Phelps, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-00263-WMN) Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Brian Cohen, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Paul Phelps, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

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 as 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 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. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (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 (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


Summaries of

Cohen v. Rosenstein

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jun 8, 2017
No. 16-7313 (4th Cir. Jun. 8, 2017)
Case details for

Cohen v. Rosenstein

Case Details

Full title:JEFFREY BRIAN COHEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROD J. ROSENSTEIN, US…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 8, 2017

Citations

No. 16-7313 (4th Cir. Jun. 8, 2017)