Case ID: f-appx_603/html/0221-01.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

Linda M. BENNETT, Executrix for the Estate of Elizabeth H. Maynard and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (OPM); Office of Federal Employee’s Group Life Insurance (OFEGLI); Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (METLIFE), Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-1083.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 19, 2015.
    Decided: May 21, 2015.
    Linda M. Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Brodish Binkley, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina; Elizabeth J. Bondurant, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, P.L.L.C., Atlanta, Georgia; Katherine Thompson Lange, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, P.L.L.C., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding - precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Linda M. Bennett seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granting on sovereign immunity grounds the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Office of Personnel Management. 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 order Bennett seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233, 65 S.Ct. 631, 89 L.Ed. 911 (1945); Baird v. Palmer, 114 F.3d 39, 42 (4th Cir.1997); Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Michigan, 5 F.3d 147, 150 (6th Cir.1993). 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.