Marion Cnty. Coal Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers' Comp. Programs

Full title: THE MARION COUNTY COAL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jul 18, 2019

No. 19-1327 (4th Cir. Jul. 18, 2019)

Opinion

No. 19-1327

07-18-2019

THE MARION COUNTY COAL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; JESSE D. TAYLOR, Respondents.

Jacob A. Manning, DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Rita Ann Roppolo, Gary K. Stearman, Office of the Solicitor - Black Lung Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Otis Ray Mann, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF OTIS R. MANN, JR., Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (18-0223 BLA) Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jacob A. Manning, DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Rita Ann Roppolo, Gary K. Stearman, Office of the Solicitor - Black Lung Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Otis Ray Mann, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF OTIS R. MANN, JR., Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

The Marion County Coal Company seeks to appeal an order issued by the Benefits Review Board remanding this case to the administrative law judge for reconsideration of whether the claimant has established that he is totally disabled for purposes of his claim under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-944 (2012). 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 The Marion County Coal Company seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant the Respondent's motion to 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