Mithun Banerjee v. Timothy Rueger

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2263 Doc: 35 Filed: 04/27/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-2263

MITHUN BANERJEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, and MALANCHA BANERJEE, Plaintiff, v. TIMOTHY S. RUEGER, Montgomery County Police Officer; RICHARD M.

LUTHER, Montgomery County Police Officer, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Brendan A. Hurson, District Judge. (8:21-cv-01997-BAH)

Submitted: April 16, 2026 Decided: April 27, 2026

Before RUSHING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2263 Doc: 35 Filed: 04/27/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

Mithun Banerjee, Appellant Pro Se. Shelley Lynn Johnson, Kevin Bock Karpinski, KARPINSKI, CORNBROOKS & KARP, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2263 Doc: 35 Filed: 04/27/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Mithun Banerjee seeks to appeal the district court’s October 7, 2025, order lifting the stay on these proceedings and denying Banerjee’s motions to add defendants to this action, for an extension of time, for appointment of counsel, and for a hearing. 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 order Banerjee seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor 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

* On appeal, Banerjee has filed six emergency motions to expedite decision and for a hearing (ECF Nos. 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 22) plus three amended motions to expedite decision (ECF Nos. 13, 14, 21). We deny those motions and all relief requested therein.