Case Name: SELECT FINANCIAL LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PENLAND FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; Charles W. Penland, Sr., Guardian ad Litem, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-27
Citations: 319 F. App'x 290
Docket Number: No. 08-1426
Parties: SELECT FINANCIAL LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PENLAND FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; Charles W. Penland, Sr., Guardian ad Litem, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 319
Pages: 290–290

Head Matter:
SELECT FINANCIAL LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PENLAND FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; Charles W. Penland, Sr., Guardian ad Litem, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 08-1426.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 11, 2009.
Decided: March 27, 2009.
Charles W. Penland, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth C. Anthony, Jr., The Anthony Law Firm, PA, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles W. Penland, Sr., appeals the district court's order that granted Plaintiffs motions for summary judgment, sanctions, and dismissal of the counterclaim filed against it; relieved Jean Bradley, the court-appointed guardian ad litem, of her duties; denied Penland's three motions to dismiss, motion for summary judgment, motion for the disbarment of an attorney and to hold Plaintiff and Bradley in contempt of court, and motion to compel information; and granted a non-party leave to provide a limited response.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Carp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (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 further deny Penland's motion for an en banc hearing on this matter as no judge has called for a vote on whether an en banc hearing should be permitted. See Fed. R.App. P. 35(f). 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.