IN RE SIEBER, 10-2341. (2011)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20110531178
Visitors: 18
Filed: May 31, 2011
Latest Update: May 31, 2011
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Stephen Charles Sieber seeks to appeal the district court's order denying him permission to file documents in his bankruptcy appeal under the electronic filing system. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545-46 (1949)
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Stephen Charles Sieber seeks to appeal the district court's order denying him permission to file documents in his bankruptcy appeal under the electronic filing system. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545-46 (1949)...
More
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stephen Charles Sieber seeks to appeal the district court's order denying him permission to file documents in his bankruptcy appeal under the electronic filing system. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Sieber seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.
Source: Leagle
