Ronald Brunson v. FBI

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cv-02132-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998779412]. Mailed to: Brunson. [11-2088, 11-2097]

Appeal: 11-2088

Document: 8

Date Filed: 02/02/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2088

RONALD BRUNSON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
Defendant - Appellee.

No. 11-2097

RONALD BRUNSON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, District of South Carolina;
CENTRAL
INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY;
FEDERAL
BUREAU
OF
INVESTIGATION; STEVE PATTERSON, Intercity Broadcasting;
NAACP, National Association Advancement Colored People;
STATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NAACP; PRESIDENT RUBY JOHNSON,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Columbia. Paige Jones Gossett, Magistrate
Judge. (3:11-cv-02132-JFA; 3:11-cv-02313-JFA)

Submitted:

January 31, 2012

Decided:

February 2, 2012

Appeal: 11-2088

Document: 8

Date Filed: 02/02/2012

Page: 2 of 3

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Brunson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-2088

Document: 8

Date Filed: 02/02/2012

Page: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated cases, Ronald Brunson seeks to
appeal

the

magistrate

judge’s

reports

recommending

district court, dismiss Brunson’s complaints.

that

the

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 orders

Brunson seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor are they
appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.

Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

the

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3