Laschkewitsch v. American National Life Insurance Co. , 671 F. App'x 230 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                            UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-2003
    JOHN LASCHKEWITSCH,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    AMERICAN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
    Chief District Judge. (5:15-cv-00021-D)
    Submitted: December 14, 2016             Decided:   December 20, 2016
    Before KING, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    John B. Laschkewitsch, Appellant Pro Se.      Kelly C. Hanley,
    Gilbert Charles Laite, III, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Raleigh, North
    Carolina; Joseph Ray Pope, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    John      Laschkewitsch         seeks    to        appeal    the    district       court’s
    order granting summary judgment against him.                               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
    Laschkewitsch         seeks    to     appeal,       which        decided    the    issue    of
    liability but made clear that the district court had yet to
    conduct    further      proceedings          to    determine          damages,    attorney’s
    fees, and costs, is neither a final order nor an appealable
    interlocutory or collateral order.                      See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v.
    Wetzel, 
    424 U.S. 737
    , 744 (1976); Dilly v. S.S. Kresge, 
    606 F.2d 62
    , 62-63 (4th Cir. 1979).                    Accordingly, we grant Appellee’s
    motion    to    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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-2003

Citation Numbers: 671 F. App'x 230

Judges: King, Per Curiam, Shedd, Wynn

Filed Date: 12/20/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024