Edar Rogler v. Department of Health and Human
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
EDAR Y. ROGLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-01676-WMN)
August 14, 2008
August 19, 2008
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges.
Edar Y. Rogler, Appellant Pro Se. Ariana Wright Arnold, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Edar Rogler seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), her civil action alleging violations of the Privacy Act and several underlying Rogler's orders. The that district court court's dismiss order her stemmed from
prejudice. Rule 41(a) voluntary dismissal without prejudice is not appealable. See Unioil, Inc. v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 809 F.2d 548,
555 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that a plaintiff generally may not appeal a voluntary dismissal without prejudice because it is not an involuntary adverse judgment against him), overruled in part on other grounds by In re Keegan Mgmt. Co., Sec. Litig., 78 F.3d 431, 434-35 (9th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. oral argument because the facts and legal We dispense with contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?