# Saul Elbaum v. Google, Incorporated

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · October 24, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10628293

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 24, 2024
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10628293

## Opinion text

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1460 Doc: 21 Filed: 10/24/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1460

SAUL ELBAUM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GOOGLE, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:23-cv-02398-TDC)

Submitted: October 22, 2024 Decided: October 24, 2024

Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Saul Elbaum, Appellant Pro Se. Franklin M. Rubinstein, WILSON SONSINI
GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1460 Doc: 21 Filed: 10/24/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Saul Elbaum seeks to appeal the district court’s order transferring Elbaum’s civil

action against Google, Inc., to the United States District Court for the Northern District of

California. 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 order Elbaum

seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

See TechnoSteel, LLC v. Beers Constr. Co., 271 F.3d 151, 153-54, 154 n.2 (4th Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Google’s motion to

strike Elbaum’s supplemental informal brief. 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10628293. Public record. Not legal advice.