Linda Bennett v. OPM

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 21, 2015
• Docket: 15-1083
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1083

LINDA M. BENNETT, Executrix for the Estate of Elizabeth H. Maynard and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (OPM); OFFICE OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEE’S GROUP LIFE INSURANCE (OFEGLI); METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (METLIFE),

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-00137-JAB-JLW)

Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Linda M. Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Brodish Binkley, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina; Elizabeth J. Bondurant, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Atlanta, Georgia; Katherine Thompson Lange, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Linda M. Bennett seeks to appeal the district court’s order

adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granting on

sovereign immunity grounds the motion to dismiss filed by

Defendant Office of Personnel Management. 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). The order

Bennett seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Catlin v.

United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945); Baird v. Palmer, 114

F.3d 39, 42 (4th Cir. 1997); Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa

Indians v. Michigan, 5 F.3d 147, 150 (6th Cir. 1993).

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