Trainor v. Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Medical ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-2092
    WILLIAM P. TRAINOR,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS OF MEDICAL DIAGNOSTICS
    PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED; WOOD GUNDY LONDON LIMITED,
    Defendants – Appellees,
    v.
    MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED,
    Debtor,
    U.S. TRUSTEE-BALTIMORE,
    Trustee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.     J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
    Judge. (1:10-cv-01571-JFM)
    Submitted:   May 26, 2011                    Decided:   May 31, 2011
    Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    William P. Trainor, Appellant Pro Se.     Edward Joseph Meehan,
    SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP, Washington, D.C., for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    William    P.    Trainor        seeks       to     appeal   the        district
    court’s order denying his motion for a jury trial in his appeal
    from    a    bankruptcy      court   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 Trainor
    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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-2092

Filed Date: 5/31/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021