Bartola Pacetti v. Michael Astrue

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion dispositions in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [998832437-2]; denying application to proceed ifp [998830839-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [998836019-2], denying Motion for transcript at government expense [998894702-2]. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-01293-LO-TCB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998912495]. Mailed to: Bartola Pacetti. [12-1461]

Appeal: 12-1461

Doc: 27

Filed: 08/09/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1461

BARTOLA J. PACETTI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL
J.
ASTRUE,
Commissioner
Administration; MARY HOLT,

of

Social

Security

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:

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

August 9, 2012

Appeal: 12-1461

Doc: 27

Filed: 08/09/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Appeal: 12-1461

Doc: 27

Filed: 08/09/2012

Pg: 3 of 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

Pacetti

Corp.,

seeks

appealable

to

337

U.S.

appeal

interlocutory

is
or

541,

545-46

neither
collateral

a

(1949).
final

order.

The

order

order

nor

Moreover,

an
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