Presidential Candidate Number P60005535 v. Chief Judge Derrick Watson

USCA4 Appeal: 26-1267 Doc: 8 Filed: 07/28/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 26-1267

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE NUMBER P60005535, a/k/a Ronald Satish Emrit, Plaintiff – Appellant, and PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE/POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE/SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUND (SSF) NUMBER C00569897, d/b/a United Emrits of America, Plaintiff, v. CHIEF JUDGE DERRICK WATSON, of Honolulu, Hawaii, United States District Court of Hawaii; JUDGE MICHAEL SEABRIGHT; JUDGE LESLIE KOBAYASHIA; JUDGE JILL OTAKE; JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR; MAGISTRATE JUDGE ROM TRADER, Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Elizabeth K. Dillon, Chief District Judge. (5:25-cv-00139-EKD-JCH)

Submitted: July 23, 2026 Decided: July 28, 2026

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 26-1267 Doc: 8 Filed: 07/28/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

Presidential Candidate Number P60005535, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 26-1267 Doc: 8 Filed: 07/28/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Ronald Satish Emrit (who also identifies himself as Presidential Candidate Number P60005535) filed a notice of appeal in his civil case almost three months 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 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.