Jeffrey Cohen v. Rod Rosenstein


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7313 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/08/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7313 JEFFREY BRIAN COHEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROD J. ROSENSTEIN, US Attorney; HARRY MASON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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?