UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2188
RUBEN DEWAYNE TAYLOR, a/k/a R. D. Taylor,
a/k/a Ruben D. Taylor,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
US TRUSTEE; W. RYAN HOVIS; BLANCHARD MACHINERY
COMPANY; FIRST CITIZENS BANK AND TRUST COMPANY
OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CA-04-895-3-22BC)
Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 1, 2005
Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ruben Dewayne Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Goman Slocum,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; W. Ryan
Hovis, Rock Hill, South Carolina; James Livingston Bruner, BRUNER,
POWELL, ROBBINS, WALL & MULLINS, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina;
Stanley Harold McGuffin, Sr., HAYNSWORTH, SINKLER & BOYD, PA,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Ruben Dewayne Taylor appeals the district court’s order
remanding his case to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings.
We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and
certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292
(2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). “A final decision generally is one
which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the
court to do but execute the judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 324
U.S. 229, 233 (1945) (internal quotation marks omitted). District
court orders remanding to the bankruptcy court for further
consideration generally are not final orders. See Legal
Representative for Future Claimants v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (In re
The Wallace & Gale Co.), 72 F.3d 21, 24 (4th Cir. 1995); Capitol
Credit Plan of Tenn., Inc. v. Shaffer, 912 F.2d 749, 750 (4th Cir.
1990) (holding that district court order remanding for the
bankruptcy court to address two arguments not previously addressed
by the bankruptcy court was not a final decision).
Accordingly, the order of the district court is not an
appealable order, and we dismiss this appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. We grant Taylor’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis
and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
- 3 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 4 -