Sirleaf v. Boozer , 53 F. App'x 309 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2109
MOMOLU V.S. SIRLEAF; ELOUISE A. SIRLEAF,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
F. VERNON BOOZER; EDWARD C. COVAHEY, JR.;
THOMAS P. DORE; ROGER J. SULLIVAN, Attorneys,
Substituted Trustees and agents, Covahey &
Boozer; DONNA HILD, Legal Assistant and Agent,
Covahey & Boozer; COVAHEY & BOOZER; FIRST
TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; CITICORP MORTGAGE,
INCORPORATED; CITIMORTGAGE, INCORPORATED,
Member of Citigroup; CITIBANK & CITIGROUP,
INCORPORATED; MAINUDDIN JANGI; NORWEST
MORTGAGE, INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-01-
3823-L)
Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: December 30, 2002
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,* Senior
Circuit Judge.
*
Senior Judge Hamilton did not participate in consideration
of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Elouise A. Sirleaf, Appellants Pro Se.
Douglas Windsor Biser, MUDD, HARRISON & BURCH, Towson, Maryland;
Robert Scott Brennen, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Momolu V.S. and Elouise A. Sirleaf seek to appeal the
district court’s order denying reconsideration of an order striking
their complaint and directing that they file an amended complaint
within ten days. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over
final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory
and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).
The order the Sirleafs seek to appeal is neither a final order nor
an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, as the district
court has yet to enter a final order in their case. 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
3