Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06762/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06762-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tomas Kurtz-Schumacher
Appellant
Unknown
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6762

TOMAS KURTZ-SCHUMACHER, a/k/a Thomas Kurtz,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNKNOWN,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Jamar Kentrell Walker, District Judge. (2:24-cv-00030-JKW-DEM)

Submitted: December 19, 2024 Decided: December 27, 2024

Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tomas Kurtz-Schumacher, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6762 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM: 

Tomas Kurtz-Schumacher seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and denying without prejudice his motion to 

appoint counsel. 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 part of 

the order denying appointment of counsel is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss this part of the appeal for lack 

of jurisdiction. 

Additionally, although the district court’s denial of leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis is an appealable order over which we have jurisdiction, see Roberts v. U.S. Dist. 

Ct., 339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950), Kurtz-Schumacher has forfeited appellate review by failing 

to challenge on appeal the district court’s conclusion that he has adequate funds to pay the 

requisite filing fees. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 

2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our 

review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm this part of 

the district court’s judgment. Kurtz-Schumacher v. Unknown, No. 2:24-cv-00030-JKWDEM (E.D. Va. July 18, 2024). 

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6762 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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. 

AFFIRMED IN PART,

DISMISSED IN PART

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6762 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 3 of 3