Gary L. Detemple v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 1949 . The

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-2410
GARY L. DETEMPLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MARK D. PANEPINTO, successor to United
National Bank, successor to Fed One Bank doing
business as Eastern Development Company;
UNITED NATIONAL BANK; WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF TAX AND REVENUE; B. K. WATTS, Unit Manager,
Internal Auditing Division, in his individual
capacity; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE;
RITA R. VALDRINI, in her individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-99-145-5)
Submitted: May 31, 2002 Decided: June 13, 2002
Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Gary L. DeTemple, Appellant Pro Se. Mark D. Panepinto, Wheeling,
West Virginia; George James Anetakis, Weirton, West Virginia;
William David Wilmoth, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Wheeling, West Virginia;
Helen Campbell Altmeyer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Gary L. DeTemple appeals from the district court’s order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion to vacate a prior order
dismissing one of the named defendants in the underlying
proceeding. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because
the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction
only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S.
541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor
an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. In light of this
disposition, we also deny DeTemple’s motions for clarification, for
production of documents, and for stay pending appeal, as well as
United National Bank’s motions to deny further extensions, to
dismiss the case, and to strike DeTemple’s informal brief and
response to its motion to dismiss. 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 of 3 --