Armando Despaigne Zulveta v. Tc Unlimited Inc; Tim Case

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2078
ARMANDO DESPAIGNE ZULVETA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TC UNLIMITED INC; TIM CASE,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
STATE AUTOMOBILE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; PHILPOT LAW FIRM PA;
STEADMAN HAWKINS CLINIC OF THE CAROLINAS; WILSON JONES CARTER &
BAXLEY PA; ROBERT P. RESTREPO, JR.; STEPHEN R. BRUNER; IRVIN H.
PHILPOT, III; CURTIS ELLIOT; WESLEY J. SHULL,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:15-cv-02880-HMH-KFM)
Submitted: December 20, 2016 Decided: December 22, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Armando Despaigne Zulveta, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy Alan
Domin, CLAWSON & STAUBES, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Armando Despaigne Zulveta appeals the district court’s
scheduling order in his civil action. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012),
and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Zulveta
seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. Additionally, although
Zulveta seeks to appeal the district court’s orders adopting the
magistrate judge’s recommendations to grant two Defendants’
motion to file a late answer, to deny Zulveta’s motion for
default judgment, and to grant motions to dismiss Zulveta’s
claims against several Defendants, this court previously
dismissed Zulveta’s interlocutory appeal of those orders for
lack of jurisdiction, Zulveta v. State Auto. Mut. Ins., No. 15-
2561, 2016 WL 4394543, at *1 (4th Cir. Aug. 18, 2016), and
another appeal would be not only interlocutory but duplicative.
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

-- 3 of 4 --

4
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 4 of 4 --