David Ruby v. Mykal Ryan

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:14-cv-00109-MSD-TEM,08-50805-FJS. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999549252]. Mailed to: Mykal Ryan, Helen Ryan, Cecelia Weschler. [14-2130]

Appeal: 14-2130

Doc: 16

Filed: 03/19/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2130

In re: MYKAL S. RYAN, HELEN E. RYAN,
Debtors,
-----------------------------------DAVID R. RUBY,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KELLY M. BARNHART,
Party-in-Interest – Appellee,
MYKAL S. RYAN; HELEN E. RYAN,
Debtors – Appellants,
and
JUDY A. ROBBINS,
Trustee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (4:14-cv-00109-MSD-TEM)

Submitted:

March 17, 2015

Decided:

March 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Appeal: 14-2130

Doc: 16

Filed: 03/19/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mykal S. Ryan, Helen E. Ryan, Appellants Pro Se.
Barnhart, Appellee Pro Se.

Kelly M.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-2130

Doc: 16

Filed: 03/19/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Mykal S. Ryan and Helen E. Ryan seek to appeal the district
court’s order directing them to show cause why their appeal from
the bankruptcy court’s order should not be dismissed for failure
to prosecute.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over

final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory
and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 54546 (1949).

The order the Ryans seek to appeal is neither a

final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3