Buesgens v. Freeland

Filing 920080122

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1858

MICHAEL L. BUESGENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHRISTINE C. FREELAND; RIVERSTONE OPERATING COMPANY, INCORPORATED; RIVERSTONE RESIDENTIAL, SC, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; CONSOLIDATED AMERICAN SERVICES, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (8:07-cv-02092-DKC)

Submitted:

January 17, 2008

Decided:

January 22, 2008

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael L. Buesgens, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Michael L. Buesgens appeals from the district court's order transferring his pending 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action from the District of Maryland to the Western District of Texas and entering a prefiling injunction. appeals the transfer of his To the extent that Buesgens this court may exercise

case,

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). It is well-settled that transfers

under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (2000) are not appealable final orders. See In re Carefirst of Md., Inc., 305 F.3d 253, 262 (4th Cir. 2002); Gower v. Lehman, 799 F.2d 925, 927 (4th Cir. 1986). We

therefore lack jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of the transfer of Buesgens' action. To the extent Buesgens appeals the imposition of the prefiling injunction, our review of the record discloses no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the order for the reasons stated by the district court. Buesgens v.

Freeland, No. 8:07-cv-02092-DKC (D. Md. Aug. 17, 2007).

We deny

Buesgens' motion to certify state court judgments and dispense with

- 2 -

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 IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART

- 3 -