Potter v. Crestwood Golf Club

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-3039

KEVIN POTTER; MARGUERITE C. POTTER,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY; STEPHANIE E. MOORE,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

CRESTWOOD GOLF CLUB, INCORPORATED; CRESTWOOD PARTNERSHIP; JOHN BOYD; WALTER BRYANT; DALE BRYANT; GEORGE SPRUCE MCCAIN; CLAUDE MCCAIN; JACK DICKEY; DICKEY COMPANY; JAMES MOSTELLER, III; KELLY CANNON; MCCAIN FINANCIAL GROUP, INCORPORATED; SOUTH CAROLINA NATIONAL BANK; WILLIAM BERRY; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL; MICHAEL CHAPPELL; JAMES S. WILLIAMSON, JR.,

Defendants.

No. 95-3200

KEVIN POTTER; MARGUERITE C. POTTER,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus SOUTH CAROLINA NATIONAL BANK; WILLIAM BERRY,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

CRESTWOOD GOLF CLUB, INCORPORATED; CRESTWOOD PARTNERSHIP; JOHN BOYD; WALTER BRYANT; DALE BRYANT; GEORGE SPRUCE MCCAIN; CLAUDE MCCAIN; JACK DICKEY; DICKEY COMPANY; JAMES MOSTELLER, III; KELLY CANNON; MCCAIN FINANCIAL GROUP, INCORPORATED; SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY; STEPHANIE E. MOORE; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL; MICHAEL CHAPPELL; JAMES S. WILLIAMSON, JR.,

Defendants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-94-2047-5-22-BC)

Submitted: April 16, 1996 Decided: May 24, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Potter, Marguerite C. Potter, Appellants Pro Se. Mark Wester McKnight, Charleston, South Carolina; Stanley Harold McGuffin, Sr., SINKLER & BOYD, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

2 PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal from the district court's orders discussing

some, but not all, defendants in Appellants' civil action. We dis-

miss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not

appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral order.

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