Chester Yates v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1853
CHESTER A. YATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:20-cv-00189-GCM)
Submitted: November 19, 2020 Decided: November 23, 2020
Before WILKINSON, KING, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Chester A. Yates, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas William Hanna, GRAEBE HANNA &
SULLIVAN, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Chester A. Yates seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Defendant’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292;
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).
“Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.”
Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate all of the
claims raised in the complaint. See id. at 696-97. Specifically, the district court failed to
address Yates’ allegations of harassment and intimidation and his allegations regarding
theft of renewals and clients—allegations that go beyond simple termination of his
contract. We conclude that the order Yates seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction and remand to the district court for consideration of the unresolved claims.
Id. at 699.
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 AND REMANDED
2