Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Whitehead v. Twentieth Century Fox, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed David Louis Whitehead's appeal of a district court order transferring his copyright infringement complaint to the District Court for the District of Columbia. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the order because it was not a final order or otherwise appealable. As such, the court denied Whitehead's motions for sanctions, to stay the case, and for injunctive relief, and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-08-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-1120

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed David Louis Whitehead's appeal of a district court order transferring his copyright infringement complaint to the District Court for the District of Columbia. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the order because it was not a final order or otherwise appealable. As such, the court denied Whitehead's motions for sanctions, to stay the case, and for injunctive relief, and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    10 views2 pages

    Whitehead v. Twentieth Century Fox, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed David Louis Whitehead's appeal of a district court order transferring his copyright infringement complaint to the District Court for the District of Columbia. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the order because it was not a final order or otherwise appealable. As such, the court denied Whitehead's motions for sanctions, to stay the case, and for injunctive relief, and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 07-1120

    DAVID LOUIS WHITEHEAD,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    TWENTIETH
    CENTURY
    FOX
    FILM
    CORPORATION;
    TYNDALE HOUSE PUBLISHER, INCORPORATED; NEW
    MARKET FILMS, INCORPORATED; FOX 43,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    Claude M. Hilton, Senior
    District Judge. (1:06-cv-01349-CMH)

    Submitted:

    May 11, 2007

    Decided:

    August 17, 2007

    Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    David Louis Whitehead, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    David Louis Whitehead appeals the district courts order
    transferring his complaint, alleging copyright infringement, to the
    District Court for the District of Columbia pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
    1404(a)(2000) and 1406(a)(2000).
    jurisdiction only over final orders.

    This court may exercise


    28 U.S.C. 1292(2000); Fed.

    R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Cor., 337 U.S.


    541 (1949).

    The order Whitehead seeks to appeal is neither a final

    order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

    See In

    re Carefirst of Md., Inc., 305 F.3d 253, 257 (4th Cir. 2002).
    Accordingly, we deny Whiteheads motion for sanctions against
    opposing counsel; we deny as moot his motion to stay his case
    pending submission of the DVD, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST (Twentieth
    Century Home Entertainment, Inc. 2004); we deny as moot his motions
    for injunctive relief, and we dismiss his appeal for lack of
    jurisdiction. 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.

    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like