Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-02003/USCOURTS-ca4-16-02003-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American National Life Insurance Company
Appellee
John B. Laschkewitsch
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2003

JOHN LASCHKEWITSCH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

AMERICAN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,

Chief District Judge. (5:15-cv-00021-D)

Submitted: December 14, 2016 Decided: December 20, 2016

Before KING, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John B. Laschkewitsch, Appellant Pro Se. Kelly C. Hanley, 

Gilbert Charles Laite, III, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Raleigh, North 

Carolina; Joseph Ray Pope, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2003 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/20/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

John Laschkewitsch seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order granting summary judgment against him. 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 (1949). The order 

Laschkewitsch seeks to appeal, which decided the issue of 

liability but made clear that the district court had yet to 

conduct further proceedings to determine damages, attorney’s 

fees, and costs, is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. 

Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 744 (1976); Dilly v. S.S. Kresge, 606 F.2d 

62, 62-63 (4th Cir. 1979). Accordingly, we grant Appellee’s 

motion to 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

Appeal: 16-2003 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/20/2016 Pg: 2 of 2