LeRose v. US

Filing 920061218


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1852 JOHN STEVEN LEROSE; REBECCA LAUREN LEROSESWEENEY; FRANK GIGLIOTTI; EUGENE FRANCIS CONNELLY; RONALD AMATI, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee, and WILLIAM D. COGER, JR., Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:03-cv-02372) Submitted: December 14, 2006 Decided: December 18, 2006 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Bruce Snyder, BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants. Fred B. Westfall, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Steven LeRose, Rebecca Lauren LeRose-Sweeney, Frank Gigliotti, Eugene Francis Connelly, and Ronald Amati seek to appeal from the district court's order entering judgment in favor of the United States in the Appellants' lawsuit against the United States and William Coger, Jr. in the district court. over final orders, The claims against Coger are still pending This court may exercise jurisdiction only 28 U.S.C. 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). order nor The order Appellants seek to appeal is neither a final an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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 - 2 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?