Case Name: ESTATE OF Albert P. SCHULTZ, Bonnie Schultz, Representative, Appellant v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-22
Citations: 285 F. App'x 886
Docket Number: No. 07-2752
Parties: ESTATE OF Albert P. SCHULTZ, Bonnie Schultz, Representative, Appellant v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service.
Judges: Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 285
Pages: 886–886

Head Matter:
ESTATE OF Albert P. SCHULTZ, Bonnie Schultz, Representative, Appellant v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service.
No. 07-2752.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued May 22, 2008.
Filed: July 22, 2008.
Alexander Schultz, Esq. (Argued), Palm Beach Gardens, FL, for Appellant.
David C. Belt, Esq. (Argued), United States Postal Service Office of Labor Law, David G. Karro, Esq., United States Postal Service, Washington, DC, Robert L. Eberhardt, Esq., Office of the United States Attorney, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellee.
Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
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.