The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
24-2239•In re: BARBARA ALBYTINE GIBBS v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
24-2239Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 14, 2026
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-2239
In re: BARBARA ALBYTINE GIBBS,
Debtor,
M. EUGENE GIBBS,
Appellant,
v.
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.,
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (4:24-cv-06573-MGL-KDW)
Submitted: December 22, 2025 Decided: January 13, 2026
Before GREGORY and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Melvin Eugene Gibbs, Appellant Pro Se. Jeremy Cook Hodges, Matthew Douglas
Patterson, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
M. Eugene Gibbs noted an appeal to the district court from several orders entered
by the bankruptcy court. He also filed several motions for a temporary restraining order or
preliminary injunction and sought a stay of proceedings pending appeal. Gibbs then noted
the instant appeal of the district court’s purported denial of his motions for a temporary
restraining order, injunction, and stay.
At the time Gibbs noted this appeal, the district court had issued no ruling pertaining
to his motions. Because Gibbs noted this appeal prior to the entry of an appealable order,∗
we deny his motion for clarification, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See
United States v. Doe, 962 F.3d 139, 143 (4th Cir. 2020) (“We have jurisdiction only over
final orders and certain interlocutory and collateral orders.” (citation modified)). 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
∗ Although the district court issued its final judgment before we considered this
appeal, the doctrine of cumulative finality does not cure the jurisdictional defect. See
Houck v. LifeStore Bank, 41 F.4th 266, 271 (4th Cir. 2022) (explaining cumulative finality
applies only when district court could have certified order for immediate appeal under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 54(b)).
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.