Beattie R. Ashmore v. Michael Thoma

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:10-cv-03141-MBS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998873019].. [11-1642]

Appeal: 11-1642

Doc: 60

Filed: 06/12/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1642

In Re:

Receiver.

----------------------------UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
and
BEATTIE B. ASHMORE, Receiver,
Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL THOMAS; CAROLYN THOMAS,
Respondents - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Margaret B. Seymour, Chief
District Judge. (3:10-cv-03141-MBS)

Submitted:

May 31, 2012

Decided:

June 12, 2012

Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alvin G. Matthews, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellants.
L. Walter Tollison, III, Lauren S. Price, THE TOLLISON LAW FIRM,

Appeal: 11-1642

Doc: 60

Filed: 06/12/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

P.A., Greenville, South Carolina; Thomas E. Vanderbloemen,
GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-1642

Doc: 60

Filed: 06/12/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Michael and Carolyn Thomas seek to appeal the district
court’s

order

Carolina

denying

state

court

leave
and

to

sue

finding

the
that

jurisdiction over contested assets.

Receiver
the

in

North

Receiver

had

This court may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders, 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.,

§ 1292(a)(2)

337

U.S.

does

541,

allow

545-46
for

(1949).

appeal

of

While
certain

28

U.S.C.

specific

interlocutory orders concerning receivers, this case does not
concern one of those orders.

The order the Thomases seek to

appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory
or collateral order.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for

lack of jurisdiction.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3