Stephen Yelverton v. Yelverton Farms, Ltd

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Stephen Yelverton v. Yelverton Farms, Ltd

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1553

STEPHEN THOMAS YELVERTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

WENDELL W. WEBSTER, in his capacity as Chapter 7 Trustee in Bankruptcy for Steven Thomas Yelverton,

Plaintiff,

v.

YELVERTON FARMS, LTD; PHYLLIS EDMUNDSON; CHARLES EDMUNDSON; DEBORAH MARM,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

WADE H. ATKINSON, JR.,

Intervenor.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:09-cv-00331-FL)

Submitted: November 15, 2011 Decided: November 17, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen Thomas Yelverton, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald L. Gibson, ERWIN & ELEAZER, PA, Charlotte, North Carolina; Natalie S. Walker, WEBSTER, FREDERICKSON & BRACKSHAW, Washington, D.C.; John C. Bircher, III, WHITE & ALLEN, PA, New Bern, North Carolina; John Pierce Marshall, Matthew Scott Sullivan, WHITE & ALLEN, PA, Kinston, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Stephen Thomas Yelverton seeks to appeal the district

court orders determining that he lacked standing, denying his

motion to amend, substituting the bankruptcy trustee as

plaintiff, and amending the case caption. This court may

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1291

(2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1292

(2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial

Indus. Loan Corp.,

337 U.S. 541, 545-46

(1949). The orders

Yelverton seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor

appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. 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

3

Reference

Status
Unpublished