Tigress McDaniel v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1187 Doc: 28 Filed: 07/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1187

TIGRESS SYDNEY ACUTE MCDANIEL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; LM INSURANCE CORPORATION; LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CORPORATION; MIB GROUP, INC.; LIBERTY MUTUAL EQUITY CORPORATION; LIBERTY MUTUAL EQUITY LLC; LIBERTY MUTUAL FOUNDATION; LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP ASSET MANAGEMENT INC.; LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC.; LIBERTY MUTUAL HOLDING COMPANY INC.; LIBERTY MUTUAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS LLC; LIBERTY MUTUAL MANAGED CARE LLC; LIBERTY MUTUAL MID-ATLANTIC INSURANCE COMPANY; LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY; LIBERTY MUTUAL MANAGED CARE, INC.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:21-cv-00610-FDW-DSC)

Submitted: July 25, 2023 Decided: July 27, 2023

Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1187 Doc: 28 Filed: 07/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

Tigress Sydney Acute McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se. Marie D. Lang, WALL TEMPLETON & HALDRUP, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina; Jeffrey Phillips Macharg, FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1187 Doc: 28 Filed: 07/27/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Tigress Sydney Acute McDaniel seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing

with prejudice most of the claims raised in McDaniel’s pro se civil action but allowing two

claims to proceed against Defendant MIB Group, Inc. 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). The order McDaniel seeks to appeal is neither a final order, given that

litigation on her remaining claims is ongoing, nor is it an appealable interlocutory or

collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss this 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