In re: Philip Fetner v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 1, 2024
• Docket: 23-1132
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1132 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1132

In re: PHILIP JAY FETNER,

Appellant.

PJF LIMITED (FAMILY) PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a Coachman Farms, d/b/a Golden Zebra,

Debtor,

v.

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT SOLELY AS TRUSTEE FOR BCAT 2017-19-TT,

Creditor,

THOMAS P. GORMAN,

Trustee - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-00937-AJT-IDD)

Submitted: November 30, 2023 Decided: March 1, 2024

Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1132 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

Philip Jay Fetner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1132 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Philip Jay Fetner seeks to appeal the district court’s order referring him to the United

States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia for a possible criminal contempt

prosecution. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

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

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Because the district

court has not found Fetner to be in contempt, nor has it imposed any other sanction, we

lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s order. See Adkins v. Christie, 227 F. App’x

804, 806 (11th Cir. 2007); Teaford v. Ford Motor Co., 338 F.3d 1179, 1181-82

(10th Cir. 2003); United States v. McCorkle, 321 F.3d 1292, 1298-99 (11th Cir. 2003).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. 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