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)
25-2375•PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE NUMBER P60005535, a/k/a Ronald Satish Emrit v. ERIN BURNETT, Outfront of Cable News Network (CNN)
25-2375Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitApr 27, 2026
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-2375
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE NUMBER P60005535, a/k/a Ronald Satish Emrit;
PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE/POLITICAL ACTION
COMMITTEE/SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUND (SSF) NUMBER C00569897,
d/b/a United Emrits of America,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
ERIN BURNETT, Outfront of Cable News Network (CNN); JASON CARROLL;
ANDREW KACZYNSKI, of K-File; MANU RAJU; DR. SANJAY GUPTA; JAKE
TAPPER; LAWRENCE O’DONNELL, of The Last Word on MSNBC; BMW
CARS OF NORTH AMERICA; BARRY LEVINE, of National Enquirer; NANCY
MACE, of South Carolina (Congresswoman),
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Shiva Vafai Hodges, Magistrate Judge. (3:25-cv-12996-DCC)
Submitted: April 23, 2026 Decided: April 27, 2026
Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Presidential Candidate Number P60005535, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Satish Emrit (who also identifies himself as Presidential Candidate Number
P60005535) filed a notice of appeal in his civil case after the magistrate judge entered a
report recommending dismissal of his complaint as frivolous but 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 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.