Won Yong Kim v. Thomas Gorman

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-01187-AJT-TCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000123514]. Mailed to: Kim. [17-1021]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-1021 Doc: 15 Filed: 07/24/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1021 WON YONG KIM, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THOMAS PATRICK GORMAN; NATIONSTAR BANK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:16-cv-01187-AJT-TCB) Submitted: July 20, 2017 Decided: July 24, 2017 Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Won Yong Kim, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Patrick Gorman, OFFICE OF THE CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-1021 Doc: 15 Filed: 07/24/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Won Yong Kim seeks to appeal from the district court’s order dismissing her claims against Thomas Gorman in Kim’s civil action against Gorman and Nationstar Bank. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 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). Because Kim’s claims against Nationstar Bank have not been addressed, the order Kim seeks 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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?