UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1642
In Re: Receiver.
-----------------------------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
and
BEATTIE B. ASHMORE, Receiver,
Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL THOMAS; CAROLYN THOMAS,
Respondents - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Chief
District Judge. (3:10-cv-03141-MBS)
Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 12, 2012
Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alvin G. Matthews, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellants.
L. Walter Tollison, III, Lauren S. Price, THE TOLLISON LAW FIRM,
P.A., Greenville, South Carolina; Thomas E. Vanderbloemen,
GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Michael and Carolyn Thomas seek to appeal the district
court’s order denying leave to sue the Receiver in North
Carolina state court and finding that the Receiver had
jurisdiction over contested assets. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006),
and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). While 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(a)(2) does allow for appeal of certain specific
interlocutory orders concerning receivers, this case does not
concern one of those orders. The order the Thomases seek to
appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory
or collateral order. 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3