Court Opinion

ID: 9405647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 21:00:53.389633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:23.237802
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1412      Doc: 8         Filed: 06/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-1412

        PAKUJA CRYSTAL VANG,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cv-00253-MR)

        Submitted: June 22, 2023                                            Decided: June 27, 2023

        Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Pakuja Crystal Vang, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1412      Doc: 8         Filed: 06/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Pakuja Crystal Vang seeks to appeal the district court’s orders entered in her

        pending civil action denying her motion to appoint counsel and directing her to respond to

        the defendant’s motion to dismiss. 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).

        The orders Vang seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or

        collateral orders. Accordingly, we 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

                                                     2