2008 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-22-2008

Estate Schultz v. Potter

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 07-2752

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Estate Schultz v. Potter" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 818.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/818
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2752

___________

ESTATE OF ALBERT P. SCHULTZ,

BONNIE SCHULTZ, Representative,

 Appellant

v.

JOHN E. POTTER,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service

___________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 05-cv-01169)

District Judge: The Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose

___________

ARGUED MAY 22, 2008

Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: July 22, 2008)

Alexander Schultz, Esq. (Argued)

P. O. Box 32644
2

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33420

Counsel for Appellant

David C. Belt, Esq. (Argued)

United States Postal Service

Office of Labor Law

475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW

Washington, DC 20260-1133

Robert L. Eberhardt, Esq.

Office of the United States Attorney

700 Grant Street, Suite 4000

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

David G. Karro, Esq.

United States Postal Service

Room 6416

475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW

Washington, DC 20260

Counsel for Appellee

___________

OPINION OF THE COURT

___________

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

This appeal concerns the District Court’s disposition of an enforcement action that

arose originally from a decision of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. For the

reasons explained below, we do not reach the merits of the appeal because we lack

jurisdiction. 
The District Court’s May 3, 2007 order, from which Schultz appeals, states the

following language. 

AND NOW, this 2nd day of May, 2007, having

held a final conference and there being no

outstanding issues remaining in this case, it is

ordered that the above captioned case be

marked closed.

We conclude that this order is an administrative closeout order. Such orders lack finality

and we do not have jurisdiction to review them. Penn West Associates, Inc. v. Cohen,

371 F.3d 118 (3d Cir. 2004). 

We note from the briefs and from oral argument that appellant expresses its

particular concern that the District Court did not establish a sum-certain value for health

care benefits that it is due. Our lack of jurisdiction precludes us from reaching this issue,

and we regard the determination of the precise value of such benefits to be squarely

within the ambit and authority of the District Court.

For these reasons, we will dismiss this appeal and remand for further disposition

by the District Court. 

3