Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01681/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01681-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 07-1681 

SELECT FINANCIAL LLC,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHARLES W. PENLAND, Guardian ad Litem Jean

Bradley,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

JEAN BRADLEY, Guardian ad Litem; PENCO,

INCORPORATED,

Defendants,

and

PENLAND FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant & Third Party Plaintiff,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Third Party Defendant.

Appeal: 07-1681 Doc: 23 Filed: 01/22/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

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: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 22, 2008 

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles W. Penland, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth C. Anthony,

Jr., KNIE, WHITE & ANTHONY, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-1681 Doc: 23 Filed: 01/22/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Charles W. Penland appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion to dismiss. This court may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and

certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292

(2000); 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 also deny Penland’s motion for an order directing

District Court Judge Anderson to recuse himself from further

proceedings in this matter and his motion for general relief. 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

Appeal: 07-1681 Doc: 23 Filed: 01/22/2008 Pg: 3 of 3