Armando Zulveta v. State Automobile Mutual Ins.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999745639-2] Originating case number: 6:15-cv-02880-HMH-KFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999912834].. [15-2561]

Appeal: 15-2561

Doc: 35

Filed: 08/18/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2561

ARMANDO DESPAIGNE ZULVETA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE AUTOMOBILE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; PHILPOT LAW FIRM,
PA; TC UNLIMITED INCORPORATED; STEADMAN HAWKINS CLINIC OF
THE CAROLINAS; WILSON JONES CARTER & BAXLEY PA; ROBERT P.
RESTREPO, JR.; STEPHEN R. BRUNER; IRVIN H. PHILPOT, III; TIM
CASE; CURTIS ELLIOT; WESLEY J. SHULL,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:15-cv-02880-HMH-KFM)

Submitted:

August 12, 2016

Decided:

August 18, 2016

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Armando Despaigne Zulveta, Appellant Pro Se. Phillip E. Reeves,
GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, PA, Greenville, South Carolina; Eric K.
Englebardt, TURNER, PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY, PA, Greenville,
South Carolina; Timothy Alan Domin, CLAWSON & STAUBES, LLC,
Charleston, South Carolina; James Ben Alexander, Kenneth Norman
Shaw, HAYNSWORTH, SINKLER & BOYD, PA, Greensville, South

Appeal: 15-2561

Doc: 35

Filed: 08/18/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Carolina; Wilson Scarborough Sheldon, WILLSON JONES CARTER
BAXLEY, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

&

Appeal: 15-2561

Doc: 35

Filed: 08/18/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Armando

Despaigne

Zulveta

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s orders adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendations
to

grant

Zulveta’s

Defendants’
motion

motion

for

default

to

file

a

judgment,

late

and

answer,

grant

deny

motions

to

dismiss Zulveta’s claims against several Defendants.

This court

may

28

exercise

jurisdiction

only

over

final

orders,

U.S.C.

§ 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,
28

U.S.C.

§ 1292

(2012);

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

54(b);

Cohen

v.

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).

The

orders Zulveta

nor

seeks

to

appeal

are

neither

final

appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

orders

Accordingly, we
We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3