Rosario Fiorani, Jr. v. CapitalOne Financial Corp., No. 19-2019 (4th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2019 ROSARIO A. FIORANI, JR., a/k/a Ross A. Fiorani, Jr., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION; CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE, INC., Corp. Ofc. Jane & John Does 1-25; LINDSAY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, d/b/a Lindsay CJD & Ram, a/k/a John Does X, Y, & Z; GREENWOOD RECOVERY, INCORPORATED; LEESBURG AUTO IMPORT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:19-cv-02456-GLR) Submitted: February 26, 2020 Decided: March 26, 2020 Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rosario A. Fiorani, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rosario A. Fiorani, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This Court 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, 54547 (1949). An order denying “a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is an appealable[, interlocutory] order.” Roberts v. U.S. Dist. Court, 339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950) (per curiam). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Fiorani’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See Dillard v. Liberty Loan Corp., 626 F.2d 363, 364 (4th Cir. 1980) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Fiorani v. Capital One Fin. Corp., No. 1:19cv-02456-GLR (D. Md. filed Sept. 11, 2019, and entered Sept. 12, 2019). 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

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.