SIEBER v. WASHINGTON POST COMPANIES, 11-1364. (2011)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20111004107
Visitors: 2
Filed: Oct. 04, 2011
Latest Update: Oct. 04, 2011
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Appellants seek to appeal the district court's order denying their motion to withdraw the order of reference of Stephen Sieber's bankruptcy case to the bankruptcy court and denying Sieber's motion requesting the court to adopt his proposed order. 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
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Appellants seek to appeal the district court's order denying their motion to withdraw the order of reference of Stephen Sieber's bankruptcy case to the bankruptcy court and denying Sieber's motion requesting the court to adopt his proposed order. 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...
More
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Appellants seek to appeal the district court's order denying their motion to withdraw the order of reference of Stephen Sieber's bankruptcy case to the bankruptcy court and denying Sieber's motion requesting the court to adopt his proposed order. 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 the Appellants seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Appellants' motion to consolidate this appeal with Appeal No. 11-1857, and 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
