Beattie Ashmore v. Michael Thomas, No. 11-1642 (4th Cir. 2012)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1642 In Re: Receiver. ----------------------------UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, and BEATTIE B. ASHMORE, Receiver, Appellee, v. MICHAEL THOMAS; CAROLYN THOMAS, Respondents - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Chief District Judge. (3:10-cv-03141-MBS) Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 12, 2012 Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alvin G. Matthews, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellants. L. Walter Tollison, III, Lauren S. Price, THE TOLLISON LAW FIRM, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina; Thomas E. Vanderbloemen, GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Michael and Carolyn Thomas seek to appeal the district court s order Carolina denying state court leave and to sue finding the that jurisdiction over contested assets. Receiver the in North Receiver had 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., § 1292(a)(2) 337 U.S. does 541, allow 545-46 for (1949). appeal of While certain 28 U.S.C. specific interlocutory orders concerning receivers, this case does not concern one of those orders. The order the Thomases seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.