Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-22-2008
Estate Schultz v. Potter
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-2752
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Estate Schultz v. Potter" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 818.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/818
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-2752
___________
ESTATE OF ALBERT P. SCHULTZ,
BONNIE SCHULTZ, Representative,
Appellant
v.
JOHN E. POTTER,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 05-cv-01169)
District Judge: The Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose
___________
ARGUED MAY 22, 2008
Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: July 22, 2008)
Alexander Schultz, Esq. (Argued)
P. O. Box 32644
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33420
Counsel for Appellant
David C. Belt, Esq. (Argued)
United States Postal Service
Office of Labor Law
475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW
Washington, DC 20260-1133
Robert L. Eberhardt, Esq.
Office of the United States Attorney
700 Grant Street, Suite 4000
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
David G. Karro, Esq.
United States Postal Service
Room 6416
475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW
Washington, DC 20260
Counsel for Appellee
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
This appeal concerns the District Court’s disposition of an enforcement action that
arose originally from a decision of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. For the
reasons explained below, we do not reach the merits of the appeal because we lack
jurisdiction.
2
The District Court’s May 3, 2007 order, from which Schultz appeals, states the
following language.
AND NOW, this 2nd day of May, 2007, having
held a final conference and there being no
outstanding issues remaining in this case, it is
ordered that the above captioned case be
marked closed.
We conclude that this order is an administrative closeout order. Such orders lack finality
and we do not have jurisdiction to review them. Penn West Associates, Inc. v. Cohen,
371 F.3d 118 (3d Cir. 2004).
We note from the briefs and from oral argument that appellant expresses its
particular concern that the District Court did not establish a sum-certain value for health
care benefits that it is due. Our lack of jurisdiction precludes us from reaching this issue,
and we regard the determination of the precise value of such benefits to be squarely
within the ambit and authority of the District Court.
For these reasons, we will dismiss this appeal and remand for further disposition
by the District Court.
3