Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-24-01794/USCOURTS-ca4-24-01794-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1794

HADASSAH FEINBERG, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

FERDINAND CINTRON, JR.; JOSH SHAPIRO; FRANCIS CHARDO; COLIN 

ZWALLY; SCOTT SMITH; MICHELLE AVERY; EMILY HOFFMAN; JOSHUA 

YOUNG; JEFF ENDERS; STEPHEN LIBHART; SALLY LUPINI; ERIKA 

MARTEL; CARRIE SELF; GABI WILLIAMS; VALERIE ARKOOSH; VINCENT 

PAESE; ADAM YOUNG; LAVAL MILLER-WILSON; ANDREA BANKES; 

LARRY KRASNER; COREY DICKERSON; ANDREW BATH; LEE ANN 

TARASI; CHRISTIAN RIBEC; ROBERT MARTIN; MARCIE SMITH; ERIC 

SMITH; ROSA CRUZ; MANDJOU SYLLA; JULIE REIS; JOSHUA APPLEBY; 

CURRIN HAINES-YODER; KATHRYN CROWELL; KENNY YOUNG; KIM 

DEIBLER; MARISA MCCLELLAN; NOELLE BARRETT; GEORGE P. 

HARTWICK, III; ALYSSA SCHATZ; ANDREA MARTIN; ALLISON VAJDIC; 

SEAN MCCORMACK; TAMARA B. WILLIS; LISA WHEELER; JOHN F. 

CHERRY; WAYNE A. JACOBS; MICHAEL PALERMO; JOHN J. MCNALLY; 

MATTHEW P. SMITH; KIMBERLY KARDELIS; SAM GOLDBERG; EDWARD 

E. GUIDO; BRIDGET WHITLEY; BRAD WINNICK; JAMES 

SCHWARTZMAN; SETH WILLIAMS; BRIAN WOLFE; MARLON 

OSBOURNE; PAIGE KULSA; BRYAN R. HENNEMAN; ROGETTE HARRIS; 

AMANDA OZENBAUGH; STEPHEN OLSZEWSKI; TOM MCGARRITY; 

THOMAS CARTER; ANNA M. CIARDI, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

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

George L. Russell, III, Chief District Judge. (1:24-cv-01957-GLR) 

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1794 Doc: 21 Filed: 12/09/2024 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Submitted: December 5, 2024 Decided: December 9, 2024

Before GREGORY and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit 

Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Hadassah Feinberg, Appellant Pro Se. John J. Hare, MARSHALL DENNEHEY, P.C., 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1794 Doc: 21 Filed: 12/09/2024 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM: 

Hadassah Feinberg filed a civil action and a motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis. The district court denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and afforded 

Feinberg 21 days to pay the filing fee for the action. Before the 21-day period elapsed, the 

district court concluded that venue was not proper in the District of Maryland and sua 

sponte transferred Feinberg’s action to the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of Pennsylvania. Feinberg now seeks to appeal the venue transfer and in forma 

pauperis denial orders. 

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and 

certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); 

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949). The district court’s 

venue transfer order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral 

order. See TechnoSteel, LLC v. Beers Constr. Co., 271 F.3d 151, 160-61 (4th Cir. 2001) 

(holding that court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review transfer order once case file is 

transferred to court outside circuit and nonappealable interlocutory or collateral decisions 

also transfer with case). 

A district court order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis is an appealable 

order. Roberts v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of Cal., 339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950). 

Feinberg’s action, however, is no longer pending before the district court. Additionally, 

following the transfer of venue, the Middle District of Pennsylvania adjudicated Feinberg’s

motion seeking reconsideration of the denial of in forma pauperis status, ordered that she 

pay the filing fee for her action or file an in forma pauperis application, and dismissed her 

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1794 Doc: 21 Filed: 12/09/2024 Pg: 3 of 4
4

action when she failed to comply in October 2024. Accordingly, our resolution of this 

issue would be without effect, and therefore, advisory. We thus lack jurisdiction to 

consider Feinberg’s appeal of the district court’s denial of her motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. See Holloway v. City of Va. Beach, 42 F.4th 266, 273 (4th Cir. 2022) (“A dispute 

is moot, depriving federal courts of jurisdiction to decide it, when the issues presented are 

no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” 

(internal quotation marks omitted)); Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. City of Alexandria, 608 F.3d 150, 

161 (4th Cir. 2010) (noting that parties lack legally cognizable interest in outcome where 

“resolution of an issue could not possibly have any practical effect on the outcome of the 

matter”). 

Accordingly, we deny Feinberg’s motion to redact 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 this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1794 Doc: 21 Filed: 12/09/2024 Pg: 4 of 4