Berkowitz v. United States

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-2328

ROBERT ALAN BERKOWITZ,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, The; WACHOVIA BANK, N.A.; BANK OF ANDERSON, NA; CARECREDIT, INCORPORATED - GE MONEY COMPANY; CITY OF ANDERSON; BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF SOUTH CAROLINA; DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF MISSOURI; CIGNA HEALTHCARE BENEFITS, INCORPORATED; CIGNA CORPORATION; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY LEASING CORPORATION; BARTON R. BRIGHT, III, a/k/a Chip; NATIONAL PROCESSING COMPANY; GLOBAL PAYMENTS, INCORPORATED; ELAVON, INCORPORATED; CHASE PAYMENTECH; BANK OF AMERICA; FIFTH THIRD BANK OPERATIONS; LEGAL ENTRY MD IMOC2Q; FIRST DATA MERCHANT SERVICES CORPORATION; HPSC, INCORPORATED - GE HEALTHCARE FINANCIAL SERVICES; GREAT AMERICAN LEASING CORPORATION; DF SERVICES, LLC,

Respondents – Appellees,

and

PATTERSON DENTAL SUPPLY, INCORPORATED,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:09-cv-00651-HMH-BHH)

Submitted: October 19, 2010 Decided: October 25, 2010 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Alan Berkowitz, Appellant Pro Se. George John Conits, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina; Laurie Allyn Snyder, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Robert Alan Berkowitz seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying in part and granting in part the United

States’ motion to dismiss some, but not all, of the respondents

in his petition to quash summonses issued by the Internal

Revenue Service upon third-party record-keepers. 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., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order

Berkowitz 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 the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED