Armando Zulveta v. TC Unlimited Inc, No. 16-2078 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2078 ARMANDO DESPAIGNE ZULVETA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TC UNLIMITED INC; TIM CASE, Defendants –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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Armando Despaigne Zulveta appeals scheduling order in his civil action. the district court’s 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 nor to appeal interlocutory is or neither collateral a final order order. an appealable Additionally, although Zulveta seeks to appeal the district court’s orders adopting the magistrate motion to judge’s file a default judgment, claims against dismissed recommendations late and answer, to several Zulveta’s to to grant grant deny interlocutory Defendants’ Zulveta’s motions Defendants, two to this appeal of dismiss court those motion for Zulveta’s previously orders for lack of jurisdiction, Zulveta v. State Auto. Mut. Ins., No. 152561, 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. oral argument because the facts 3 and legal We dispense with contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 4
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.
