UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2561
ARMANDO DESPAIGNE ZULVETA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE AUTOMOBILE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; PHILPOT LAW FIRM,
PA; TC UNLIMITED INCORPORATED; STEADMAN HAWKINS CLINIC OF
THE CAROLINAS; WILSON JONES CARTER & BAXLEY PA; ROBERT P.
RESTREPO, JR.; STEPHEN R. BRUNER; IRVIN H. PHILPOT, III; TIM
CASE; CURTIS ELLIOT; WESLEY J. SHULL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:15-cv-02880-HMH-KFM)
Submitted: August 12, 2016 Decided: August 18, 2016
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Armando Despaigne Zulveta, Appellant Pro Se. Phillip E. Reeves,
GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, PA, Greenville, South Carolina; Eric K.
Englebardt, TURNER, PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY, PA, Greenville,
South Carolina; Timothy Alan Domin, CLAWSON & STAUBES, LLC,
Charleston, South Carolina; James Ben Alexander, Kenneth Norman
Shaw, HAYNSWORTH, SINKLER & BOYD, PA, Greensville, South
Carolina; Wilson Scarborough Sheldon, WILLSON JONES CARTER &
BAXLEY, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Armando Despaigne Zulveta seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendations
to grant Defendants’ motion to file a late answer, deny
Zulveta’s motion for default judgment, and grant motions to
dismiss Zulveta’s claims against several Defendants. 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
orders Zulveta seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor
appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. 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
3