No. 91-6345.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Feb. 25, 1992.
ORDER
The government moves to dismiss this appeal as taken from a nonappealable order. Claimant has responded in opposition to the motion to dismiss. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
A review of the documents before the court indicates that on October 3, 1991, the district court entered an order permitting the government to withdraw its claim to a certain six acre parcel of property in this in rem forfeiture proceeding brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1345 and 21 U.S.C. § 881. Thereafter, claimant filed a motion for reconsideration of the district court's order, which the district court denied by its order entered on October 30, 1991. Claimant filed a notice of appeal taken from the district court's October 30, 1991, order. Upon consideration, we conclude that the government's motion to dismiss must be granted.
Generally, an order disposing of fewer than all of the claims or parties involved in an action is not immediately appealable absent a Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) certification. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 742-45 (1976). Here, the district court has not issued a Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) certification. The district court has not entered a final and appealable judgment during the pendency of this appeal. Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction. See Gillis v. Department of HHS, 759 F.2d 565, 569 (6th Cir.1985).
Accordingly, the government's motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Rule 8(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
The Honorable James P. Churchill, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation