Hadarou Sare v. Christina Nikiforidou

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1103
HADAROU SARE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHRISTINA NIKIFORIDOU, in her official capacity at the University of Maryland
College Park and under her individual capacity; CHENCHEN HANDLER, in her
official capacity at the University of Maryland College Park and under her individual
capacity; MARUKO KOGURE, in her official capacity at the University of
Maryland College Park and under her individual capacity; DAN SCHORR, in his
official capacity at the University of Maryland College Park and under his individual
capacity; HOSOM FATHY, in her official capacity at the University of Maryland
College Park and under her individual capacity; UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
AT COLLEGE PARK,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Julie R. Rubin, District Judge. (1:23-cv-02675-JRR)
Submitted: May 21, 2024 Decided: May 24, 2024
Before WYNN and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Hadarou Sare, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew M. Dansicker, LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW
M. DANSICKER, LLC, Hunt Valley, Maryland; Megan Marie Jenkins, ECCLESTON &
WOLF, PC, Hanover, Maryland; Lillian Lane Reynolds, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Hadarou Sare seeks to appeal various orders the district court entered in the
underlying consolidated federal actions, including the district court’s order denying Sare’s
motion to remand one of the underlying actions to the state court from which it was
removed. 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 orders Sare
seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.
See, e.g., Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 74 (1996) (“An order denying a motion to
remand, standing alone, is obviously not final and immediately appealable as of right.”
(cleaned up)). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Sare’s
motion for an order of default, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“Appellee is permitted, but not
required, to file an informal response brief within 14 days after service of appellant’s
informal brief.”), and his motion to add additional defendants to this appeal. 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 of 3 --