Opinion

Harrey Brown v. United States

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
May 20, 2025
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 35.5%

The opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1233 Doc: 19 Filed: 05/20/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1233

HARREY ANTHONY BROWN; KESHA LYNETTE BROWN,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

BROOKE ARMY MEDICAL CENTER (BAMC); ATTENDING DR. GEORGE

J. KALLINGAL; ATTENDING DR. ALEXANDER ERNEST; RESIDENT DR.

GRACE E. PARK,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at

Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:21-cv-03801-DCN)

Submitted: May 15, 2025 Decided: May 20, 2025

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1233 Doc: 19 Filed: 05/20/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

Harrey Anthony Brown, Kesha Lynette Brown, Appellants Pro Se. William Hammond

Jordan, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1233 Doc: 19 Filed: 05/20/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Harrey Anthony Brown and Kesha Lynette Brown seek to appeal the district court’s

order denying their motions to reconsider the denials of various pretrial motions and for

evidentiary hearing. 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

Appellants seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or

collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Appellants’ motion to expedite and grant the

Government’s motion to 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

3

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.