OAK PLAZA, LLC, derivatively v. David T. Buckingham; Susan Buckingham; Richard Buckingham; Philip McNutt

UNPUBLISHED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.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 of 3 --

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 of 3 --