Linda Bennett v. OPM, No. 15-1083 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1083 LINDA M. BENNETT, Executrix for the Estate of Elizabeth H. Maynard and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (OPM); OFFICE OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEE’S GROUP LIFE INSURANCE (OFEGLI); METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (METLIFE), Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-00137-JAB-JLW) Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Linda M. Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Brodish Binkley, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina; Elizabeth J. Bondurant, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Atlanta, Georgia; Katherine Thompson Lange, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Linda M. Bennett seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granting on sovereign immunity Defendant Office grounds of the Personnel motion to dismiss Management. This filed court by 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 Bennett Corp., seeks to 337 U.S. appeal is 541, 545-46 neither a (1949). final appealable interlocutory or collateral order. The order order nor an See Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945); Baird v. Palmer, 114 F.3d 39, 42 (4th Cir. 1997); Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Michigan, 5 F.3d 147, 150 (6th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

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.