UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-1184
AFAF KANAZEH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LOCKHEED MARTIN MARIETTA; CARE MARK PRESCRIP-
TION, c/o Lockheed Martin; SAM PERRY, Common-
wealth Investigation Officer; LOCKHEED MARTIN
CORPORATION,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
MICHAEL K. MANN; TOM PERRY; MARY SCAHULZ;
JUDITH ANN STRAUSS; ROBERT VAAGE; DOUGLAS
FLANKEN; CYNTHIA VAAGE; CONNECTICUT LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY; SHERMAN, MEEHANS, CURTIN;
LAUREN SHEA; QUINLAN H. HANCOCK; MARK, SAND-
GROUND, BARONDESS & WEST; MARK SANDGROUND;
MARK BARONDESS; LARRY ANDERSON,
Defendants.
No. 99-1295
AFAF KANAZEH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CARE MARK PRESCRIPTION, c/o Lockheed Martin;
SAM PERRY, Commonwealth Investigation Officer,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
MICHAEL K. MANN; LOCKHEED MARTIN MARIETTA; TOM
PETTY; MARY SCAHULZ; JUDITH ANN STRAUSS;
ROBERT VAAGE; DOUGLAS FLANKEN; CYNTHIA VAAGE;
CONNECTICUT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; SHERMAN,
MEEHANS, CURTIN; LAUREN SHEA; QUINLAN H.
HANCOCK; MARK, SANDGROUND, BARONDESS & WEST;
MARK SANDGROUND; MARK BARONDESS; LARRY
ANDERSON,
Defendants.
No. 99-1305
AFAF KANAZEH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CARE MARK PRESCRIPTION, c/o Lockheed Martin;
SAM PERRY, Commonwealth Investigation Officer,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
2
MICHAEL K. MANN; LOCKHEED MARTIN MARIETTA; TOM
PERRY; MARY SCAHULZ; JUDITH ANN STRAUSS;
ROBERT VAAGE; DOUGLAS FLANKEN; CYNTHIA VAAGE;
CONNECTICUT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; SHERMAN,
MEEHANS, CURTIN; LAUREN SHEA; QUINLAN H.
HANCOCK; MARK, SANDGROUND, BARONDESS & WEST;
MARK SANDGROUND; MARK BARONDESS; LARRY
ANDERSON,
Defendants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-98-1410-A)
Submitted: August 10, 1999 Decided: August 31, 1999
Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Nos. 99-1184 and 99-1305 dismissed in part and affirmed in part and
No. 99-1295 dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Afaf Kanazeh, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Sorrells Boyd, PIPER &
MARBURY, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
3
PER CURIAM:
In case No. 99-1184, Afaf Kanazeh appeals the district court’s
orders of November 2, 19981; November 13, 1998; January 22, 1999;
and February 1, 1999.2 We dismiss Kanazeh’s appeal as to the Janu-
ary 22, 1999 order, insofar as the order dismisses without preju-
dice Kanazeh’s claims against Lockheed Martin under the Employment
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the Consolidated
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). See Domino Sugar Corp.
v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.
1993). We affirm as to the remaining issues in the January 22,
1999 order and as to the remaining orders on the reasoning of the
district court. See Kanazeh v. Mann, No. CA-98-1410-A (E.D. Va.
Nov. 2 & 13, 1998; Jan. 22 & Feb. 1, 1999).
In case No. 99-1295, Kanazeh appeals the order of February 16,
1999. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory because the order
appealed was not a final order. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291-1292 (1994);
1
Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
October 30, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on November 2, 1998. It is the date
the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the
effective date of the district court’s decision. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 58 and 79(a); Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th
Cir. 1986).
2
The district court’s order is marked as “filed” on January
29, 1999, but the district court’s records show that it was entered
on the docket sheet on February 1, 1999.
4
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337
U.S. 541, 546-47 (1949).
In case No. 99-1305, Kanazeh appeals the orders of February
19, 1999; February 26, 1999; and March 26, 1999. We dismiss the
appeal as to the March 26, 1999 order, insofar as it dismisses
without prejudice defendants Care Mark Prescription and Sam Perry.
See Domino Sugar Corp., 10 F.3d at 1066-67. We affirm as to the
remaining issues in the March 26, 1999 order and as to the remain-
ing orders on the reasoning of the district court. See Kanazeh v.
Mann, No. CA-98-1410-A (E.D. Va. Feb. 19, 26, & Mar. 26, 1999).
We deny Kanazeh’s “Motion for Leave to Bring In Third-Party
Defendant” and “Motion to Supplement Records on Appeal and Perfec-
tion to Enforce a Judgment and Motion to Join All Cases on Pending
Appeal.” We 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.
No. 99-1184 - DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART
No. 99-1295 - DISMISSED
No. 99-1305 - DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART
5