Case ID: f-appx_658/html/0687-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John STRITZINGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; Executive Office of the President of the United States; Verizon Business Enterprise Services, d/b/a MCI Communications Services, Inc.; Mr. Dan Tangherlini, in his role as the former head of the GSA; Ms. Katherine Ruemeller, in her role as White House Counsel; Denise Turner Roth; Warren Neil Eggleston; Susan Zeleniak; Brian Kennedy; Dr. Peter Tippett; Nicola Palmer; Joseph Biden; Jacob Lew, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-1607
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: September 30, 2016
    Decided: October 5, 2016
    John Stritzinger, Appellant Pro Se.
    
      Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John S. Stritzinger seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s report recommending that his civil action be dismissed without prejudice. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation Stritzinger seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appeal-able interlocutory or collateral order. Haney v. Addison, 175 F.3d 1217, 1219 (10th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny Stritzinger’s motion to appoint counsel. 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 
      
       Although the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report before we considered this appeal, the doctrine of cumulative finality does not cure the jurisdictional defect. Equip. Fin. Grp. v. Traverse Comput. Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347-48 (4th Cir. 1992) (holding that doctrine of cumulative finality only applies where order appealed from could have been certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)); see In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 288 (4th Cir. 2005) (noting that “a premature notice of appeal from a clearly interlocutory decision” cannot be saved under the doctrine of cumulative finality (internal quotation marks omitted)).