The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
25-1899•Ronald Satish Emrit, a/k/a Presidential Candidate Number P60005535, a/k/a… v. GOVERNOR WES MOORE, D-Maryland
25-1899Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 24, 2026
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1899
RONALD SATISH EMRIT, a/k/a Presidential Candidate Number P60005535,
a/k/a Presidential Committee/Political Action Committee/Separate Segregated Fund
(SSF), d/b/a United Emrits of America,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GOVERNOR WES MOORE, D-Maryland; AISHA BRAVEBOY, Prince George’s
County Executive; CONGRESSMAN JAMIE RASKIN, D-Maryland; SENATOR
ANGELA ALSOBROOKS, D-Maryland; SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, D-
Maryland; ANTHONY BROWN, Maryland Attorney General,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:25-cv-02185-PX)
Submitted: February 19, 2026 Decided: February 23, 2026
Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Satish Emrit, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Satish Emrit filed a notice of appeal in his civil case a month after filing his
complaint and before the district court had entered any orders. 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). Emrit does not seek to appeal either a final order or
an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Emrit’s motion to
reinstate his case and 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
* Because Emrit’s notice of appeal cannot supply jurisdiction to review the district
court’s dismissal order entered after he filed his notice of appeal, Emrit must file another
notice of appeal if he wishes to appeal that order.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.