USCA4 Appeal: 24-1908 Doc: 14 Filed: 01/27/2025 Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1904
KEVIN DONNELL MURPHY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARY A. JACKSON, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 24-1905
KEVIN DONNELL MURPHY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RUTH SHUMAN, Program Director; NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 24-1906
KEVIN DONNELL MURPHY,
Plaintiff - Appellant, *2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1908 Doc: 14 Filed: 01/27/2025 Pg: 2 of 5
v.
THE STATE OF DELAWARE FAMILY COURT; DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 24-1907
KEVIN DONNELL MURPHY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
AMY ANTHONY, Director of Motor Vehicle Administration in the State of Delaware; ALL THE WORKERS THAT WERE INVOLVED IN THE VIOLATING MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS SUSPENSION OF MY LICENSE, Motor Vehicles administrative State of Delaware workers,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 24-1908
KEVIN DONNELL MURPHY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE FAMILY COURT; ANDREZA PETICACIS, Mediator at Delaware Family Court; MICHELLE HOFFMAN, Delaware Family Court Administrator, Director of Case Flow Management; THEODORE MERMIGOS, Division Director, Child Support Services, State of Delaware; DEBORAH GERMAINE GUERIN; GLADYS SEWELL; JULIE SHAHAN; RICHARDSON-GRABLE; KATHY JENNINGS,
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1908 Doc: 14 Filed: 01/27/2025 Pg: 3 of 5
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (1:24-cv-00323-SAG; 1:24-cv-01586-SAG; 1:24- cv-01587-SAG; 1:24-cv-01702-SAG); Julie R. Rubin, District Judge. (1:24-cv-01588- JRR)
Submitted: January 23, 2025 Decided: January 27, 2025
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Donnell Murphy, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *4 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1908 Doc: 14 Filed: 01/27/2025 Pg: 4 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Donnell Murphy seeks to appeal the district court’s orders in his five civil
actions. In No. 24-1904, Murphy seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting
Defendant’s motion for an extension of time to file a response to Murphy’s complaint.
Similarly, No. 24-1905, Murphy seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting
Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to file a response to Murphy’s amended
complaint in that action. In No. 24-1906, Murphy seeks to appeal the district court’s
marginal order denying Murphy’s motion to reconsider the court’s prior order transferring
the case based on improper venue. In No. 24-1907, Murphy seeks to appeal the district’s
order transferring his claim against officers of the Delaware Department of Motor Vehicles
to the district court in Delaware. Finally, No. 24-1908, Murphy seeks to appeal the district
court’s order transferring his claims against the Delaware Family Court system and
Delaware Department of Child Support Services to the district court in Delaware.
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 Murphy
seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. *
* We also lack jurisdiction over three of Murphy’s appeals (No. 24-1906, No. 24- 1907, and No. 24-1908) for a separate reason: his notices of appeal were untimely. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.”); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (“In a civil case, [with exceptions not relevant to those three appeals], the notice of appeal required by Rule 3 must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from.”).
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1908 Doc: 14 Filed: 01/27/2025 Pg: 5 of 5
See, e.g., In re Carefirst of Md., Inc., 305 F.3d 253, 262 (4th Cir. 2002) (holding that orders
transferring actions to another district court are not final or immediately appealable
collateral orders). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals in all of the cases for lack of
jurisdiction. In light of that decision, we also deny Murphy’s pending motions in No. 24-
1907 as moot. 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.