In re Stephenson v. ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-1328
In Re: ANTHONY E. STEPHENSON,
Debtor.
ANTHONY E. STEPHENSON,
Debtor - Appellant,
versus
JAMES H. LEE,
Creditor - Appellee,
and
MARK M. MALAND,
Trustee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis-
trict Judge. (MC-98-36, BK-87-01521-MN2)
Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: December 17, 1999
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rosbon D. B. Whedbee, Ahoskie, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Stephen L. Beaman, Richard S. Wright, BEAMAN & KING, P.A., Wilson,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Anthony E. Stephenson seeks to appeal the district court's
order dismissing in part his appeals from the bankruptcy court.
The district court's order granted the creditor's motion to dismiss
two notices of appeal filed by Stephenson (from the bankruptcy
court's March 10 and April 9 orders) but denied the motion as to
Stephenson's July 9 notice of appeal from the bankruptcy court's
June 29, 1998, supplemental order directing transfer of assets. At
the time Stephenson filed this notice of appeal, the district court
had not yet entered a final order with respect to the July 9 notice
of appeal. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdic-
tion because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and
certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a
final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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
3