James Owens-El v. Maryland Transit, No. 19-2218 (4th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2218 JAMES JOSEPH OWENS-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARYLAND TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee, and STATE OF MARYLAND; OFFICER K. DALES, (#0334) Maryland Transit Administration Policeman, in his individual and official capacity; SERGEANT B. WHITE, (#0177) Maryland Transit Administration Policeman, in his individual and official capacities; JEFFREY A. MILLER, Attorney at Law, in his individual and official capacities; HOWARD SMITH, Claims Adjuster Transit Insurance Group; in his individual and official capacities; LISA GREEN, Claims Adjuster, Transit Insurance Group, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (1:19-cv-01248-SAG) Submitted: February 18, 2020 Decided: February 20, 2020 Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Joseph Owens-El, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald McGlenn Cherry, BONNER KIERNAN TREBACH & CROCIATA LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: James Joseph Owens-El seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his “emergency motion seeking entervention” [sic]. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2018), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2018); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Owens-El seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

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.