Case Name: John D. GOELZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, and Provident Companies, Incorporated, a/k/a The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company; Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company; Provident Companies, Incorporated, their agents and assigns, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-06-20
Citations: 17 F. App'x 76
Docket Number: No. 01-1136
Parties: John D. GOELZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, and Provident Companies, Incorporated, a/k/a The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company; Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company; Provident Companies, Incorporated, their agents and assigns, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 17
Pages: 76–77

Head Matter:
John D. GOELZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, and Provident Companies, Incorporated, a/k/a The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company; Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company; Provident Companies, Incorporated, their agents and assigns, Defendants.
No. 01-1136.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 31, 2001.
Decided June 20, 2001.
John D. Goelz, pro se.
Erna Avari Patrick Womble, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Winston-Salem, NC, for appellee.
Before LUTTIG and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
John D. Goelz appeals the district court's order dismissing his breach of contract action for failure to prosecute. Because Goelz failed to challenge the basis for the district court's ruling in his appellate brief, he failed to preserve this issue for review. See 4th Cir.Local R. 34(b). Goelz's only issue on appeal concerns his challenge to the removal of his case from state to federal court. This court previously advised Goelz that he could challenge the removal of his case to federal court when the district court entered a final order. Instead of proceeding with his case in good faith, he deliberately refused to participate in any proceedings in the district court. Although this court has an obligation to review jurisdictional issues regardless of whether they are raised by the parties, Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986), it is the court — and not the litigants — that determines how cases will be handled. See National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 642, 96 S.Ct. 2778, 49 L.Ed.2d 747 (1976). Because Goelz has attempted to circumvent this court's direction that the removal issue be reviewed only on appeal from a final order on the merits by refusing to participate in the district court action, and because he failed to comply with the district court's order directing him to respond to discovery requests and otherwise refused to participate in district court proceedings, we affirm the dismissal for failure to prosecute. 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.
AFFIRMED.