Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
07-1120•David Louis Whitehead v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Cor., 337 U.S. 541 1949 . The
07-1120Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit17.08.2007
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1120
DAVID LOUIS WHITEHEAD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION;
TYNDALE HOUSE PUBLISHER, INCORPORATED; NEW
MARKET FILMS, INCORPORATED; FOX 43,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cv-01349-CMH)
Submitted: May 11, 2007 Decided: August 17, 2007
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Louis Whitehead, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
David Louis Whitehead appeals the district court’s order
transferring his complaint, alleging copyright infringement, to the
District Court for the District of Columbia pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1404(a)(2000) and 1406(a)(2000). This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(2000); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Cor., 337 U.S.
541 (1949). The order Whitehead seeks to appeal is neither a final
order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See In
re Carefirst of Md., Inc., 305 F.3d 253, 257 (4th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, we deny Whitehead’s motion for sanctions against
opposing counsel; we deny as moot his motion to stay his case
pending submission of the DVD, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST (Twentieth
Century Home Entertainment, Inc. 2004); we deny as moot his motions
for injunctive relief, and we dismiss his 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.