Grant Anderson, Plaintiff-appellant, v. the District of Columbia; Dc Court of Appeals,defendants-appellees.grant Anderson, Plaintiff-appellant, v. the District of Columbia; Dc Court of Appeals, Defendants-appellees, 67 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 1995)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 67 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 1995) Sept. 13, 1995

Grant Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WIDENER, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


Grant Anderson appeals from the district court's orders denying his motion for reconsideration of its order transferring his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) action from the Eastern District of Virginia to the District Court for the District of Columbia (appeal No. 95-6475), and imposing a pre-filing injunction on Anderson (appeal No. 95-6995). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error with respect to appeal No. 95-6995. We therefore affirm that appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Anderson v. District of Columbia, No. CA-94-877-R (E.D. Va. June 27, 1995).

We dismiss appeal No. 95-6475. This court only has jurisdiction to review final decisions of the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988). It is well-settled that discretionary transfers under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (1988) are interlocutory and not appealable. See Grower v. Lehman, 799 F.2d 925, 927 (4th Cir. 1986). It follows, therefore, that the district court's order denying Anderson's motion for reconsideration of that order is also an interlocutory non-appealable order. We therefore dismiss this appeal.

We deny Anderson's motion to set aside our previous order consolidating these cases. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

No. 95-6475--DISMISSED

No. 95-6995--AFFIRMED

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.