Court Opinion

ID: 9899544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 21:01:00.136284+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:39.100354
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1643      Doc: 18         Filed: 11/15/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1643

        ROBERT HAINEY; ROSEMARY HAINEY,

                            Plaintiffs - Appellants,

                     v.

        SAG-AFTRA HEALTH PLAN; BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE SAG-AFTRA
        HEALTH PLAN,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:21-cv-02618-PX)

        Submitted: October 26, 2023                                 Decided: November 15, 2023

        Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Robert Hainey and Rosemary Hainey, Appellants Pro Se. Myron D. Rumeld,
        PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP, New York, New York, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1643      Doc: 18         Filed: 11/15/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Robert and Rosemary Hainey seek to appeal the district court’s order granting in

        part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Haineys’ amended complaint

        alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-

        1461, and state law. Defendants have moved to dismiss the Haineys’ appeal as improperly

        taken from a nonfinal order. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,

        28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed.

        R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The

        order the Haineys seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or

        collateral order. Accordingly, we grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismiss the

        appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We further deny the Haineys’ motion to strike and motion

        for reassignment on remand. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

        contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

        not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                       DISMISSED

                                                     2