Jeffrey Gregory v. Wayne Sigmon
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JEFFREY DALE GREGORY, Debtor v. U.S. BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATOR; (U.S. POSTAL SERVICE), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Appellant,
Parties-in-Interest, SONYA MCABEE GREGORY, Debtor, and WAYNE SIGMON, Trustee Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00011-LHT)
October 21, 2008
October 23, 2008
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Dale Gregory, Appellant Pro Se. P. Wayne Sigmon, GRAY, LAYTON, KERSH, SOLOMON, SIGMON, FURR & SMITH, PA, Gastonia, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: After the district court remanded this case to the bankruptcy court for approval of a settlement and denied Jeffrey Dale Gregory's motion for reconsideration, the bankruptcy court entered an order approving the settlement. appeal to this court. Gregory noted his
To the extent that Gregory seeks to
appeal the district court's order remanding the case and denying his motion for reconsideration, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral 54(b); (1949). orders, v. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 Indus. (2000); Loan Fed. R. Civ. U.S. P. 541
The order Gregory seeks to appeal is neither a final
order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. To the extent that Gregory seeks to appeal from the bankruptcy court's order approving the settlement, this court also lacks jurisdiction. We have direct appellate jurisdiction
in a bankruptcy case if the bankruptcy court or the district court certifies that: (1) an order entered in the case involves a question of law as to which there is no controlling decision of the court of appeals for the circuit or of the Supreme Court, or if it involves a matter of public importance; (2) the order involves a question of law that requires resolution of
conflicting decisions; or (3) an immediate appeal from the order 3
may materially advance the progress of the case or proceeding. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 158(d)(2)(A) (West 2006 & Supp. 2008). No
such certification was made here, and we decline to exercise direct appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, jurisdiction. we dismiss the appeal for lack of
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
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?