Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01403/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01403-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1403

JEFFREY C. SKEENS, as Administrator of the Estate of Grover 

Skeens; CAROLYN D. DAVIS, as Administratrix of the Estate 

of Charles T. Davis; OWEN T. DAVIS, as Administrator of the 

Estate of Cory Davis,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

ALPHA NATURAL RESOURCES, INC.; ALPHA APPALACHIA HOLDINGS, 

INC., f/k/a Massey Energy Company,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Irene C. Berger, 

District Judge. (2:14-cv-27781; 5:12-cv-06854)

Submitted: November 29, 2016 Decided: January 5, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with 

instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Michael Ranson, RANSON LAW OFFICES, PLLC, Charleston, West 

Virginia; G. Patrick Jacobs, JACOBS LAW OFFICE, Charleston, West 

Virginia, for Appellants. A.L. Emch, Gretchen M. Callas, 

JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1403 Doc: 44 Filed: 01/05/2017 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey C. Skeens, Carolyn D. Davis, and Owen T. Davis 

(Appellants), as administrators of the estates of Grover Skeens, 

Charles T. Davis, and Cory Davis, respectively, seek to appeal 

the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice their 

amended complaint against Alpha Natural Resources, Inc., and 

Alpha Appalachia Holdings, Inc., (Alpha) in Case No. 5:12–cv–

06854 and dismissing with prejudice their complaint against 

Alpha in Case No. 2:14-cv-27781. We dismiss the appeals and, in 

the appeal from Case No. 2:14-cv-27781, we vacate that part of 

the court’s order dismissing the case with prejudice and remand 

with instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice. 

With respect to Case No. 5:12–cv–06854, we note that we 

have already twice declined to consider the Plaintiffs’ appeal 

of the district court’s dismissal of their case without 

prejudice. See Skeens v. Alpha Nat. Res., Inc., No. 13–1727 

(4th Cir. ECF No. 41); Skeens v. Alpha Nat. Res., Inc., 583 F. 

App’x 200, 201 (4th Cir. Sept. 17, 2014) (No. 13-2444). We 

discern no difference in the posture of this case that would 

require us to disturb our prior decisions. See, e.g., Sierra 

Club v. Khanjee Holding (US) Inc., 655 F.3d 699, 705 (7th Cir. 

2011) (finding “no significant differences” in the legal 

landscape that would warrant re-examination of prior 

jurisdictional ruling). The district court’s dismissal in this

Appeal: 15-1403 Doc: 44 Filed: 01/05/2017 Pg: 2 of 4
3

case remains an interlocutory order that is not subject to 

appeal. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 

392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we once 

again dismiss the appeal of the district court’s order in Case 

No. 5:12–cv–06854.

Turning to the Plaintiffs’ appeal of the district court’s 

order in Case No. 2:14-cv-27781, we note that the Plaintiffs

fail to challenge in their appellate brief the court’s 

dispositive finding that they lacked standing because 

enforcement of the nonprosecution agreement (NPA) remained 

solely with the United States, and its determination as to 

whether Alpha violated the terms of the NPA was not subject to 

review by any court. Because Plaintiffs do not challenge the 

court’s dispositive finding, they have waived review. See

N.L.R.B. v. Bluefield Hosp. Co., LLC, 821 F.3d 534, 545 n.8 (4th 

Cir. 2016). 

The district court should have dismissed the complaint for 

lack of jurisdiction based on its conclusion that the Appellants 

did not have standing. Further, because the court lacked 

jurisdiction, “any alternate holdings based on consideration of 

and conclusions on the merits were beyond the power of the 

district court.” S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n, 

Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 n.4 (4th 

Cir. 2013). 

Appeal: 15-1403 Doc: 44 Filed: 01/05/2017 Pg: 3 of 4
4

Accordingly, because the Appellants waived review of the 

district court’s conclusion regarding standing in Case No. 2:14-

cv-27781, we dismiss the appeal. Because a dismissal for lack 

of standing must be without prejudice, we vacate the court’s 

order to the extent that the dismissal was with prejudice, and 

remand with instructions that the case be dismissed without

prejudice. Id. at 185.

DISMISSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART,

AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

Appeal: 15-1403 Doc: 44 Filed: 01/05/2017 Pg: 4 of 4