Bartola J. Pacetti v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration; MARY HOLT

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1461
BARTOLA J. PACETTI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security
Administration; MARY HOLT,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
MARK S. MILLARD, Judge; ALAN CARLSON; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR EASTERN DISTRICT OF
VIRGINIA; STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL; KATHY
RICCI,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:11-cv-01293-LO-TCB)
Submitted: July 20, 2012 Decided: August 9, 2012
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Bartola J. Pacetti, Appellant Pro Se. Julie Ann Edelstein,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Bartola J. Pacetti seeks to appeal the district
court’s order granting the motion to dismiss the claims against
Defendants Michael J. Astrue and Mary Holt. This court may
exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28
U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial
Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order
Pacetti seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Moreover, a
review of the district court’s docket does not indicate that the
court had issued its final judgment before we considered this
appeal. Cf. In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 289 (4th Cir. 2005);
Equip. Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d
345, 347-48 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we grant the motion
to dismiss the appeal, deny Pacetti leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and his pending motions, and 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

-- 3 of 3 --