Presidential Candidate Number P60005535 v. Erin Burnett

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2375 Doc: 5 Filed: 04/27/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2375 Doc: 5 Filed: 04/27/2026 Pg: 2 of 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