Court Opinion

ID: 9947164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-02 21:01:04.31243+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:53.496355
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1132     Doc: 14       Filed: 03/01/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                          UNPUBLISHED

                             UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                 FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                            No. 23-1132

        In re: PHILIP JAY FETNER,

                           Appellant.

        PJF LIMITED (FAMILY) PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a Coachman Farms, d/b/a Golden
        Zebra,

                           Debtor,

                     v.

        WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL
        CAPACITY BUT SOLELY AS TRUSTEE FOR BCAT 2017-19-TT,

                           Creditor,

        THOMAS P. GORMAN,

                           Trustee - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-00937-AJT-IDD)

        Submitted: November 30, 2023                                 Decided: March 1, 2024

        Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1132      Doc: 14         Filed: 03/01/2024    Pg: 2 of 3

        Philip Jay Fetner, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1132      Doc: 14          Filed: 03/01/2024      Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Philip Jay Fetner seeks to appeal the district court’s order referring him to the United

        States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia for a possible criminal contempt

        prosecution. 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). Because the district

        court has not found Fetner to be in contempt, nor has it imposed any other sanction, we

        lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s order. See Adkins v. Christie, 227 F. App’x

        804, 806 (11th Cir. 2007); Teaford v. Ford Motor Co., 338 F.3d 1179, 1181-82

        (10th Cir. 2003); United States v. McCorkle, 321 F.3d 1292, 1298-99 (11th Cir. 2003).

        Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. 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

                                                      3