Jeffrey Dale Gregory v. U.s. Bankruptcy Administrator

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1494
JEFFREY DALE GREGORY,
Debtor – Appellant,
v.
U.S. BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATOR; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(U.S. POSTAL SERVICE),
Parties-in-Interest,
SONYA MCABEE GREGORY,
Debtor,
and
WAYNE SIGMON,
Trustee – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:08-cv-00011-LHT)
Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 23, 2008
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 4 --

Jeffrey Dale Gregory, Appellant Pro Se. P. Wayne Sigmon, GRAY,
LAYTON, KERSH, SOLOMON, SIGMON, FURR & SMITH, PA, Gastonia,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

-- 2 of 4 --

PER CURIAM:
After the district court remanded this case to the
bankruptcy court for approval of a settlement and denied Jeffrey
Dale Gregory’s motion for reconsideration, the bankruptcy court
entered an order approving the settlement. Gregory noted his
appeal to this court. To the extent that Gregory seeks to
appeal the district court’s order remanding the case and denying
his motion for reconsideration, we lack jurisdiction over the
appeal. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541
(1949). The order Gregory seeks to appeal is neither a final
order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
To the extent that Gregory seeks to appeal from the
bankruptcy court’s order approving the settlement, this court
also lacks jurisdiction. We have direct appellate jurisdiction
in a bankruptcy case if the bankruptcy court or the district
court certifies that: (1) an order entered in the case involves
a question of law as to which there is no controlling decision
of the court of appeals for the circuit or of the Supreme Court,
or if it involves a matter of public importance; (2) the order
involves a question of law that requires resolution of
conflicting decisions; or (3) an immediate appeal from the order
3

-- 3 of 4 --

4
may materially advance the progress of the case or proceeding.
See 28 U.S.C.A. § 158(d)(2)(A) (West 2006 & Supp. 2008). No
such certification was made here, and we decline to exercise
direct appellate jurisdiction.
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

-- 4 of 4 --