Case ID: f-appx_668/html/0033-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Armando Despaigne ZULVETA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE AUTOMOBILE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; Philpot Law Firm, PA; TC Unlimited Incorporated; Steadman Hawkins Clinic of the Car-olinas; 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.
    
      No. 15-2561
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: August 12, 2016
    Decided: August 18, 2016
    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.
    Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges,
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (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