The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
02-2168•Sam Anthony, a/k/a Bennie L. Outlaw v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 1949 . Because no
02-2168Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitDec 30, 2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2168
SAM ANTHONY, a/k/a Bennie L. Outlaw,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL; UNITED
STATES AMERICAN GOVERNMENT; DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 02-2169
SAM ANTHONY, a/k/a Bennie L. Outlaw,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL; UNITED
STATES AMERICAN GOVERNMENT; DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION,
Defendants - Appellees.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge; F. B. Stillman, Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-626, CA-02-627)
Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: December 30, 2002
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sam Anthony, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Sam Anthony filed notices of appeal in each of two actions he
had pending in the district court. However, the district court had
not yet entered orders in either of the cases. 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 no order had been
entered—much less a final order or an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order—we dismiss the appeals 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.