Legg v. KLLM, Incorporated ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2403
LACRECIA LEGG, as Administratrix of the Estate
of Mark Sutphin Hanna; MARK SUTPHIN HANNA,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
KLLM, INCORPORATED, a Texas corporation;
GUSTAVO JIMENEZ, d/b/a Southwest Freightlines,
a Texas corporation; KEITH JAMES PIERCE, an
individual; MANUEL HERNANDEZ MEDRANO, an
individual,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (CA-05-540)
Submitted: October 11, 2006 Decided: November 6, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anne E. Shaffer, Charleston, West Virginia; Kimberly E. Williams,
WHITEMAN BURDETTE, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellants. Thomas V. Flaherty, Jaclyn A. Bryk, FLAHERTY,
SENSABAUGH & BONASSO, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia; Neva G.
Lusk, Jill C. Bentz, SPILMAN, THOMAS & BATTLE, P.L.L.C.,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
LaCrecia Legg, as personal representative of the estate
of Mark Sutphin Hanna, appeals the district court’s partial
judgment order in favor of KLLM, Inc., and Keith James Pierce in
this wrongful death action. The district court ordered that
judgment should be entered without delay.* See Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b). Although neither Legg, KLLM, nor Pierce has challenged the
district court’s apparent certification of this appeal under Rule
54(b), we must consider sua sponte the issue of whether the court’s
entry of final judgment was warranted because it involves the scope
of our jurisdiction. See Snowden v. CheckPoint Check Cashing, 290
F.3d 631, 635 (4th Cir. 2002) (“[W]hen our appellate jurisdiction
is in doubt, we must sua sponte raise and address the matter.”).
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Certification pursuant to Rule 54(b) is disfavored in
this circuit. Braswell Shipyards, Inc. v. Beazer East, Inc.,
2 F.3d 1331, 1335 (4th Cir. 1993). In certifying an appeal, the
district court must determine “whether there is no just reason for
the delay in the entry of judgment.” Id. Although we have set
forth factors a court should consider in making such determination,
id. at 1335-36, the district court did not address any of those
factors in its order. “The expression of clear and cogent findings
*
Legg’s action against the remaining defendants has been
stayed by the district court pending resolution of this appeal.
- 2 -
of fact is crucial” for appellate review of the court’s
certification decision. Id. at 1336.
Because the district court did not set forth its
rationale in ordering that judgment against KLLM and Pierce be
entered without delay, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. See id. at 1335-36; see also Curtiss-Wright Corp. v.
Gen. Elec. Corp., 446 U.S. 1, 10 (1980). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -