Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01950/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01950-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edward Berry
Appellee
Durrette
Appellee
Tarsha Gerald
Appellant
Brett Holme
Appellee
Jenny Jones
Appellee
McNerney
Appellee
Morgan Minor
Appellee
Nash
Appellee
Christina Self
Appellee
Soroki
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1950

TARSHA GERALD,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

MORGAN MINOR, CPS; CHRISTINA SELF, CPS; JENNY JONES, Chief; 

EDWARD BERRY, Judge; SOROKI, Officer, Badge CP-68; 

MCNERNEY, Officer, Badge CP-76; DURRETTE, Officer, LT., 

CP-10; NASH, Officer, Badge CP-99; BRETT HOLME, Officer, 

Badge CP-89,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:16-cv-00650-HEH)

Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 17, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tarsha Gerald, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1950 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Tarsha Gerald seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

transferring her pending civil rights action from the Eastern 

District of Virginia to the Western District of Virginia under 

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (2012). 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 Gerald seeks 

to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. E.g., In re Carefirst of 

Md., Inc., 305 F.3d 253, 256 (4th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we 

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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

Appeal: 16-1950 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 2 of 2