UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1858
MICHAEL L. BUESGENS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CHRISTINE C. FREELAND; RIVERSTONE OPERATING
COMPANY, INCORPORATED; RIVERSTONE RESIDENTIAL,
SC, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; CONSOLIDATED
AMERICAN SERVICES,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.
(8:07-cv-02092-DKC)
Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 22, 2008
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Michael L. Buesgens, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael L. Buesgens appeals from the district court’s
order transferring his pending 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action from
the District of Maryland to the Western District of Texas and
entering a prefiling injunction. To the extent that Buesgens
appeals the transfer of his case, this court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and
certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292
(2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). It is well-settled that transfers
under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (2000) are not appealable final orders.
See In re Carefirst of Md., Inc., 305 F.3d 253, 262 (4th Cir.
2002); Gower v. Lehman, 799 F.2d 925, 927 (4th Cir. 1986). We
therefore lack jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of the transfer
of Buesgens’ action.
To the extent Buesgens appeals the imposition of the
prefiling injunction, our review of the record discloses no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the order
for the reasons stated by the district court. Buesgens v.
Freeland, No. 8:07-cv-02092-DKC (D. Md. Aug. 17, 2007). We deny
Buesgens’ motion to certify state court judgments and dispense with
- 2 -
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.
DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART
- 3 -