Susan Keever v. Martha Gallagher

Filing 920090303

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1747

SUSAN F. KEEVER, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARTHA MEDLOCK GALLAGHER, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:07-cv-00362-MR)

Submitted:

February 26, 2009

Decided:

March 3, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas B. Kakassy, THOMAS B. KAKASSY, PA, Gastonia, North Carolina, for Appellant. Geoffrey A. Planer, Gastonia, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Martha Medlock Gallagher appeals the district court's order affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings to determine the nondischargeable portion of a state court tort award. may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, This court 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). Gallagher seeks to appeal is neither a final

The order nor an

order

appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

District court

orders remanding matters to the bankruptcy court for further consideration are not final orders. See Legal Representative

for Future Claimants v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (In re The Wallace & Gale Co.), 72 F.3d 21, 24 (4th Cir. 1995); see also Capitol

Credit Plan of Tenn., Inc. v. Shaffer, 912 F.2d 749, 750 (4th Cir. 1990) (holding that district court order remanding for the bankruptcy court to address two arguments not previously

addressed by the bankruptcy court was not a final decision). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We

legal

2

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3