Case ID: f-appx_53/html/0309-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Momolu V.S. SIRLEAF; Elouise A. Sirleaf, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. 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.
    
      No. 02-2109.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2002.
    Decided Dec. 30, 2002.
    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.
    Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    
      
       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).
    
   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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (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.