Amar Bansal v. Montgomery County, Maryland, No. 13-2012 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2012 AMAR BANSAL; BINA BANSAL, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND; THOMAS BERRY, Montgomery County Maryland Department of Police, Officer, Defendants Appellees, and MONTGOMERY COUNTY MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF POLICE; MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND SHERIFF S DEPARTMENT, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (8:12-cv-00519-JFM) Submitted: August 25, 2014 Decided: September 5, 2014 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy L. Ponds, THE PONDS LAW FIRM, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Marc P. Hansen, County Attorney, Patricia P. Via, Chief, Division of Litigation, Karen L. Federman Henry, Chief, Division of Finance and Procurement, Patricia Lisehora Kane, Associate County Attorney, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Amar and Bina Bansal seek to appeal the district court s order granting the motion to dismiss the claims against Montgomery County, Maryland, and Officer Thomas Berry in the Bansals 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. 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, 545-46 (1949). Bansals seek to appeal is neither a final appealable interlocutory or collateral order. dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials The order the order nor an Accordingly, we We dispense with legal contentions are before this and court 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.