UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
2