Jeffrey Cohen v. Rod Rosenstein

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00263-WMN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000097196]. Mailed to: Jeffery Cohen. [16-7313]

Appeal: 16-7313

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/08/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7313

JEFFREY BRIAN COHEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROD J. ROSENSTEIN, US Attorney; HARRY MASON GRUBER, Asst. US
Attorney; JOYCE KALLAM MCDONALD, Asst. US Attorney,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-00263-WMN)

Submitted: May 31, 2017

Decided: June 8, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Brian Cohen, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Paul Phelps, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7313

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/08/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Brian Cohen seeks to appeal the district court’s order staying his civil suit
against federal prosecutors pending resolution of his criminal direct appeal, as well as its
order granting in part and denying in part Cohen’s motion for reconsideration. As a
threshold inquiry to any appeal, we are obliged to satisfy ourselves of our jurisdiction to
hear the matter. See Clark v. Cartledge, 829 F.3d 303, 305 (4th Cir. 2016); United States
v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237, 246 (4th Cir. 2011). We may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541,
545-46 (1949). The orders Cohen seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable
interlocutory or collateral orders. See Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr.
Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 11 n.11 (1983); Amdur v. Lizars, 372 F.2d 103, 105-06 (4th Cir. 1967).
Accordingly, we 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2