Banerjee v. Rueger – Do It For The Caselaw

Holding: The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court order was not a final or appealable interlocutory order.
Standard: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291 finality requirement
Vote: Per Curiam decision dismissing the appeal.
Practical effect: The dismissal prevents the plaintiffs from challenging the district court's procedural rulings at this time, requiring them to wait for a final judgment or a qualifying interlocutory order before appealing.

Banerjee v. Rueger

April 27, 2026 ·25-2263 ·Per Curiam · By Raj Patel

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal filed by pro se plaintiffs challenging a district court order. The court held that the order was neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order under federal law.

Background

Mithun Banerjee and Malancha Banerjee filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The district court issued an order on October seventh, two thousand and twenty-five, lifting a stay on proceedings and denying motions to add defendants, extend time, appoint counsel, and hold a hearing. The appellants sought to appeal this order.

The court’s reasoning

The court explained that it may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders under Section twelve ninety-one of Title twenty-eight of the United States Code, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders under Section twelve ninety-two of Title twenty-eight and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure fifty-four. The order Banerjee sought to appeal was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

What it means going forward

The dismissal prevents the plaintiffs from challenging the district court’s procedural rulings at this time, requiring them to wait for a final judgment or a qualifying interlocutory order before appealing.