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)
05-1298•June Ballah v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 1949 . Ballah’s complaint seeking review…
05-1298Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 7, 2005
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1298
JUNE BALLAH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CA-04-2473-SB-BM)
Submitted: August 29, 2005 Decided: September 7, 2005
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
June Ballah, Appellant Pro Se. Bonnie Evelyn Sims, Assistant
Regional Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
June Ballah appeals the Commissioner of Social Security’s
(“Commissioner”) denial of her application for Supplemental Social
Security Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act,
42 U.S.C. §§ 1381 to 1383f (2000). 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).
Ballah’s complaint seeking review of the Commissioner’s
decision remains pending in the district court; the district court
has yet to issue an order in connection with Ballah’s case that is
a final order or 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.
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.