Tonita Hall v. United States Department of Ed, No. 10-1790 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1790 TONITA HALL, Plaintiff Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; FSA OMBUDSMAN U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; NORTHERN VIRGINIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE; SALLIE MAE, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-01340-CMH-IDD) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Circuit Decided: Judges, and November 24, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tonita Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Deirdre Gaudet Brou, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Paul Kugelman, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, Amy Sanborn Owen, COCHRAN & OWEN, LLC, Vienna, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tonita Hall seeks to appeal the district court s order informing her that all inquiries regarding service of process should be directed to the U.S. Marshals service. Appellees have moved to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 54546 (1949). order nor The order Hall seeks to appeal is neither a final an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant Appellees motion 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 the 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.