Steve Wool, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services;social Security Administration; Aljsreconsideration Hearing Officer;appeals Council; Unitedstates of America,defendants-appellees, 979 F.2d 849 (4th Cir. 1992)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 979 F.2d 849 (4th Cir. 1992) Submitted: August 4, 1992Decided: November 18, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Steve Wool, Appellant Pro Se.

Deborah Fitzgerald, United States Department of Health & Human Services, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellees.

D. Md.

DISMISSED.

Before WIDENER, HALL, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


Steve Wool appeals from a district court order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and remanding this case to the Secretary for further consideration of Wool's eligibility for disability benefits. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. See Mall Properties, Inc. v. Marsh, 841 F.2d 440, 441 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 848 (1988); Dalto v. Richardson, 434 F.2d 1018, 1019 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 979 (1971). This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.* 

DISMISSED

 *

Our disposition of this appeal renders moot Wool's emergency motion for reinstatement of benefits and application for stay pending appeal

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.