Tigress McDaniel v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1187 Doc: 28 Filed: 07/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1187
TIGRESS SYDNEY ACUTE MCDANIEL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; LM INSURANCE
CORPORATION; LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CORPORATION;
MIB GROUP, INC.; LIBERTY MUTUAL EQUITY CORPORATION; LIBERTY
MUTUAL EQUITY LLC; LIBERTY MUTUAL FOUNDATION; LIBERTY
MUTUAL GROUP ASSET MANAGEMENT INC.; LIBERTY MUTUAL
GROUP, INC.; LIBERTY MUTUAL HOLDING COMPANY INC.; LIBERTY
MUTUAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS LLC; LIBERTY MUTUAL MANAGED
CARE LLC; LIBERTY MUTUAL MID-ATLANTIC INSURANCE COMPANY;
LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY; LIBERTY
MUTUAL MANAGED CARE, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:21-cv-00610-FDW-DSC)
Submitted: July 25, 2023 Decided: July 27, 2023
Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1187 Doc: 28 Filed: 07/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
Tigress Sydney Acute McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se. Marie D. Lang, WALL TEMPLETON
& HALDRUP, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina; Jeffrey Phillips Macharg, FOX
ROTHSCHILD LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1187 Doc: 28 Filed: 07/27/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Tigress Sydney Acute McDaniel seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing
with prejudice most of the claims raised in McDaniel’s pro se civil action but allowing two
claims to proceed against Defendant MIB Group, Inc. 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). The order McDaniel seeks to appeal is neither a final order, given that
litigation on her remaining claims is ongoing, nor is it an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss this 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