Michael Pippen v. Antoinette Slaughter, No. 20-1618 (4th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1618 MICHAEL J. PIPPEN; MAXINE B. PIPPEN, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. ANTOINETTE NICOLE BROWN SLAUGHTER; KATRINA LAVERNE BROWN HARRISON; EVELYN DELAINE BROWN JONES; MARCIA LATANZA BROWN; DARRYL TYLER NABORS, a/k/a D. Tyler Nabors; JAMES R. HARREL; CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLC; ROBERT D. DOUGLAS, III; TRUSTEES OF GUILFORD TECHNICAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE; BRENNA M. RAGGHIANTI; JOHN CRAIG, III; LISA YVONNE JOHNSON-TONKINS; HAGAN GARRETT, PLLC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00891-LCB-LPA) Submitted: October 19, 2021 Decided: November 18, 2021 Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael J. Pippen, Maxine B. Pippen, Appellants Pro Se. Darryl Tyler Nabors, CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina; Richard Wyatt Andrews, II, Jeffrey Scott Southerland, TUGGLE DUGGINS, PA, Greensboro, North Carolina; Kip D. Nelson, FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Michael J. Pippen and Maxine B. Pippen appeal the district court’s order granting Appellees’ motion to dismiss their first amended complaint, denying leave to file a second amended complaint, and ordering sanctions against them in the form of a prefiling injunction and payment of Appellees’ attorney’s fees and costs. We dismiss in part and affirm in part. Initially, we are obliged to inquire sua sponte into our own jurisdiction, even when the parties do not dispute it. E.g., Clark v. Cartledge, 829 F.3d 303, 305 (4th Cir. 2016). Insofar as Appellants seek to appeal the district court’s award of monetary sanctions, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s ruling, as the court has not yet determined the amount of the sanction. See, e.g., MetLife Life & Annuity Co. of Conn. v. Akpele, 886 F.3d 998, 1008 (11th Cir. 2018) (holding that award of attorney’s fees is not final where amount of fee has not been quantified); Cooke v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 882 F.3d 630, 632 (7th Cir. 2018) (same); Orenshteyn v. Citrix Sys., Inc., 691 F.3d 1356, 1358-64 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding that decision to impose sanctions generally is not appealable until court determines and imposes sanction, and collecting cases); Armisted v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 675 F.3d 989, 993 (6th Cir. 2012) (same). We therefore dismiss this portion of the appeal. This jurisdictional defect, however, does not affect our jurisdiction to consider the remainder of the district court’s order. See Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund, 571 U.S. 177, 179 (2014). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Pippen v. Slaughter, 3 No. 1:19-cv-00891-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C. Apr. 30, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART 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.