Select Financial LLC v. Penland Financial Services, Inc. , 319 F. App'x 290 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1426
SELECT FINANCIAL LLC,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PENLAND FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; CHARLES W. PENLAND, SR.,
Guardian ad Litem,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (7:05-cv-02647-GRA)
Submitted: March 11, 2009 Decided: March 27, 2009
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles W. Penland, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth C.
Anthony, Jr., THE ANTHONY LAW FIRM, PA, Spartanburg, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles W. Penland, Sr., appeals the district court’s
order that granted Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment,
sanctions, and dismissal of the counterclaim filed against it;
relieved Jean Bradley, the court-appointed guardian ad litem, of
her duties; denied Penland’s three motions to dismiss, motion
for summary judgment, motion for the disbarment of an attorney
and to hold Plaintiff and Bradley in contempt of court, and
motion to compel information; and granted a non-party leave to
provide a limited response.
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(1949). The order Penland seeks to appeal is neither a final
order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We
further deny Penland’s motion for an en banc hearing on this
matter as no judge has called for a vote on whether an en banc
hearing should be permitted. See Fed. R. App. P. 35(f). 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
2