Herman Majors v. US, No. 18-6043 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6043 HERMAN MAJORS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL; JAMES RICHARD WHITSETT, DEA; DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION; SUNNY A. M. KOSHY, AUSA; US MARSHALL SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:17-cv-00180-FPS) Submitted: March 19, 2018 Decided: May 1, 2018 Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herman Majors, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Herman Majors seeks to appeal the order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissing, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012), his complaint filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680 (2012), and granting leave to amend. The action was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, where it remains pending. 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). The order Majors seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, 807 F.3d 619, 626-27 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we 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 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.