Johnny Belsome v. Rex Venture Group, LLC ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-1710
    SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
    Plaintiff,
    and
    JOHNNY BELSOME; TIMOTHY ALLEN; JODY HINKLEY; DONALD MARCEL;
    KEITH HINKLEY; STARR ATCHISON; EDWARD THIEL; BRETT HUNTER;
    TARA BELSOME, and those similarly situated,
    Movants – Appellants,
    v.
    REX VENTURE GROUP, LLC, d/b/a Zeekrewards.com; RECEIVER FOR REX
    VENTURES GROUP, LLC,
    Defendants – Appellees,
    and
    PAUL R. BURKS; TRUDY GILMOND; KELLIE KING,
    Defendants,
    and
    NATHANIEL WOODS,
    Movant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.   Graham C. Mullen,
    Senior District Judge. (3:12-cv-00519-GCM)
    Submitted:   December 22, 2014          Decided:   January 7, 2015
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Marc R. Michaud, New Orleans, Louisiana, for Appellants. Irving
    M. Brenner, Kenneth D. Bell, Matthew E. Orso, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP,
    Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Johnny    Belsome,     et    al.,     appeal        from   the    district
    court’s order clarifying a prior order and directing that any
    payments   made    by    the    Receiver       be   sent    to    a   claimant’s       home
    address rather than any third party, including attorneys.                              This
    court   may    exercise    jurisdiction         only       over    final     orders,    28
    U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral
    orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
    Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 
    337 U.S. 541
    , 545-46 (1949).                              The
    order the Appellants seek 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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-1710

Filed Date: 1/7/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021