Case Name: Van Keith HERRIDGE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ingeborg GINSBERG, a/k/a Ingeborg Neufeld, a/k/a Ingeborg Kollman, a/k/a Ingeborg Kruger, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-03-27
Citations: 31 F. App'x 250
Docket Number: No. 01-2159
Parties: Van Keith HERRIDGE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ingeborg GINSBERG, a/k/a Ingeborg Neufeld, a/k/a Ingeborg Kollman, a/k/a Ingeborg Kruger, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 31
Pages: 250–251

Head Matter:
Van Keith HERRIDGE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ingeborg GINSBERG, a/k/a Ingeborg Neufeld, a/k/a Ingeborg Kollman, a/k/a Ingeborg Kruger, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-2159.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 21, 2002.
Decided March 27, 2002.
Ingeborg Ginsberg, Appellant Pro Se.
Robert Neil Rosen, Rosen, Goodstein, & Hagood, L.L.C., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Ingeborg Ginsberg appeals the district court's order denying her "request to quash civil action." Our review of the record discloses no reversible error and no abuse of discretion. Ginsberg's motion was filed after the district court had properly entered a partial default judgment against her. Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Ginsberg's motions to disqualify attorney Rosen, and her motions to place the appeal in abeyance and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
While the appeal from this order was originally interlocutory, the district court's intervening final order renders review permissible under the doctrine of cumulative finality. Equip. Fin. Group, Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347 (4th Cir. 1992).