Oak Plaza, LLC v. David Buckingham

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1878 Doc: 24 Filed: 06/16/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1878 OAK PLAZA, LLC, derivatively and on behalf of Tower Oaks Boulevard, LLC c/o Keith J. Rosa, Esq., Court Appointed Receiver, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID T. BUCKINGHAM; SUSAN BUCKINGHAM; RICHARD BUCKINGHAM; PHILIP MCNUTT, Defendants - Appellants, and THE CARDINAL TRUST, c/o Susan E. Buckingham, Trustee, Defendant, JOHN DANIEL BUCKINGHAM, JR.; THOMAS BUCKINGHAM, Intervenors. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:22-cv-00231-DKC) Submitted: April 11, 2025 Decided: June 16, 2025 Before HEYTENS and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1878 Doc: 24 Filed: 06/16/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David T. Buckingham, Richard Buckingham, Philip McNutt, Appellants Pro Se. Kenneth Scott Nankin, NANKIN LAW LLC, Bethesda, Maryland; Kenneth R. West, ABRAMS & WEST, PC, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellant Susan Buckingham. Keith Joseph Rosa, GOITEIN ROSA LLC, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1878 Doc: 24 Filed: 06/16/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Appellants seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment on Oak Plaza LLC’s claims of unjust enrichment and legal malpractice, but denying summary judgment on the remaining claims and deferring a determination on damages, and the district court’s order denying reconsideration. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The orders Appellants seek to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders, and the district court did not certify the challenged orders for immediate appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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 3