Case Name: John Steven LEROSE; Rebecca Lauren Lerose-Sweeney; Frank Gigliotti; Eugene Francis Connelly; Ronald Amati, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant - Appellee, and William D. Coger, Jr., Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-18
Citations: 210 F. App'x 316
Docket Number: No. 06-1852
Parties: John Steven LEROSE; Rebecca Lauren Lerose-Sweeney; Frank Gigliotti; Eugene Francis Connelly; Ronald Amati, Plaintiffs — Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant — Appellee, and William D. Coger, Jr., Defendant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 210
Pages: 316–317

Head Matter:
John Steven LEROSE; Rebecca Lauren Lerose-Sweeney; Frank Gigliotti; Eugene Francis Connelly; Ronald Amati, Plaintiffs — Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant — Appellee, and William D. Coger, Jr., Defendant.
No. 06-1852.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 14, 2006.
Decided: Dec. 18, 2006.
Eric Bruce Snyder, Bailey & Glasser, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants. Fred B. Westfall, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
John Steven LeRose, Rebecca Lauren LeRose-Sweeney, Frank Gigliotti, Eugene Francis Connelly, and Ronald Amati seek to appeal from the district court's order entering judgment in favor of the United States in the Appellants' lawsuit against the United States and William Coger, Jr. The claims against Coger are still pending in the district court. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Appellants seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.