Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Presidential Candidate Number P60005535 v. Tim Walz

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Oct 1, 2026

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 26-1443

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE NUMBER P60005535, Ronald Satish Emrit; PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE/POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE/SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUND (SSF) NUMBER C00569897, d/b/a United Emrits of America Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

TIM WALZ, Governor of Minnesota; KEITH ELLISON, Attorney General of the State of Minnesota; ESTATE OF GEORGE FLOYD; HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE ATTORNEY OFFICE; RAMSEY COUNTY STATE ATTORNEY OFFICE; ILHAN OMAR, Congresswoman (D-Minnesota); THE CITY OF NEW ULM, MINNESOTA; THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA; THE LAWLESS NATION OF SOMALIA AND CITY OF MOGADISHU; THE SOMALI IMMIGRANTS IN MINNESOTA AND MAINE, Interfering with the Lifestyle of True Americans not from Somalia; PIRATES FROM SOMALIA, as in the movie "Captain Phillips" Starring Tom Hanks Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Elizabeth K. Dillon, Chief District Judge. (5:26-cv-00040-EKD-JCH) Submitted: September 29, 2026 Decided: October 1, 2026

Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

1

2

Presidential Candidate Number P60005535, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

3

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Satish Emrit (who also identifies himself as Presidential Candidate Number P60005535) filed a notice of appeal in his civil case a month 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.