Tonita Hall v. United States Department of Ed


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cv-01340-CMH-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998472158] [10-1790]

Download PDF
Tonita Hall v. United States Department of Ed Doc. 0 Case: 10-1790 Document: 18 Date Filed: 11/24/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1790 TONITA HALL, Plaintiff Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; FSA OMBUDSMAN U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; NORTHERN VIRGINIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE; SALLIE MAE, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-01340-CMH-IDD) Submitted: November 18, 2010 AGEE, Circuit Decided: Judges, and November 24, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tonita Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Deirdre Gaudet Brou, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Paul Kugelman, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, Amy Sanborn Owen, COCHRAN & OWEN, LLC, Vienna, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Case: 10-1790 Document: 18 Date Filed: 11/24/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Tonita Hall seeks to appeal the district court's order informing her that all inquiries regarding service of process should be directed to the U.S. Marshals service. Appellees have moved to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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, 54546 (1949). order nor The order Hall seeks to appeal is neither a final an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant Appellees' motion 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 2

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?