Court Opinion

ID: 9785024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:01:06.9188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:42:29.538387
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2066   Doc: 57        Filed: 08/29/2023   Pg: 1 of 4

                                         UNPUBLISHED

                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                               FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                           No. 22-2066

        MARTIN AKERMAN,

                         Plaintiff - Appellant,

                   v.

        LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, Secretary of Department of Defense; CHRISTINE E.
        WORMUTH, Secretary of the Army; FRANK KENDALL, Secretary of the Air
        Force; GENERAL DANIEL R. HOKANSON, Chief, National Guard Bureau;
        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY;
        DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE; DEFENSE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
        AND SECURITY AGENCY,

                         Defendants - Appellees.

                                           No. 22-2147

        MARTIN AKERMAN,

                         Plaintiff - Appellant,

                   v.

        LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, Secretary of Department of Defense; CHRISTINE E.
        WORMUTH, Secretary of the Army; FRANK KENDALL, Secretary of the Air
        Force; GENERAL DANIEL R. HOKANSON, Chief, National Guard Bureau;
        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY;
        DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE; DEFENSE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
        AND SECURITY AGENCY,

                         Defendants - Appellees.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2066      Doc: 57         Filed: 08/29/2023    Pg: 2 of 4

                                              No. 22-2154

        MARTIN AKERMAN,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        GENERAL DANIEL R. HOKANSON, General, Chief, National Guard Bureau;
        CHRISTINE E. WORMUTH, Secretary of the Department of the Army; FRANK
        KENDALL, Secretary of the Department of the Air Force; LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III,
        Secretary of the Department of Defense; PENTAGON; ANDREWS AFB;
        REMOTE,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria.   Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge.        (1:22-cv-00696-LMB-WEF;
        1:22-cv-01258-LMB-WEF)

        Submitted: July 28, 2023                                          Decided: August 29, 2023

        Before RUSHING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        No. 22-2066, affirmed in part and dismissed in part; Nos. 22-2147, 22-2154, affirmed by
        unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Martin Akerman, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
        Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2066      Doc: 57          Filed: 08/29/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               In the first of these consolidated appeals, No. 22-2066, Martin Akerman seeks to

        appeal the magistrate judge’s order granting Defendants’ motion for an extension of time

        to reply to Akerman’s amended complaint, and the district court’s orders denying his

        requests for counsel, to proceed in forma pauperis, and for various other forms of relief.

        Defendants have moved to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction because it is

        interlocutory. 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, 545-46 (1949). At the time

        of Akerman’s appeal, the district court had not yet entered final judgment. Therefore, other

        than the order denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the orders Akerman seeks

        to appeal were not final orders and, we conclude, were not appealable interlocutory or

        collateral orders. We therefore grant Defendants’ motion in part and dismiss Akerman’s

        appeal of those orders in No. 22-2066.

               The order denying Akerman leave to proceed in forma pauperis is, however, an

        appealable interlocutory order, Roberts v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. Of Cal., 339 U.S.

        844, 845 (1950), and therefore we have jurisdiction to review that denial. On appeal, we

        confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because

        Akerman’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition,

        he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See 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.”). We therefore affirm

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2066      Doc: 57         Filed: 08/29/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        the district court’s order denying Akerman leave to proceed in forma pauperis in No. 22-

        2066.

                In the remaining two consolidated appeals, Nos. 22-2147 and 22-2154, Akerman

        appeals the district court’s denial of relief on his amended complaint, and the court’s

        dismissal of his complaint filed in a subsequent civil action the day after the dismissal of

        the prior complaint.    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s final orders in Nos. 22-2147 and 22-2154. We

        deny all of Akerman’s pending motions in each of these consolidated appeals. 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.

                                                               No. 22-2066, AFFIRMED IN PART,
                                                                           DISMISSED IN PART;
                                                               Nos. 22-2147, 22-2154, AFFIRMED

                                                     4