United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 24-60273

____________

Ikechukwu Hyginius Okorie,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

First Bank; Eileen N. Shaffer; Timothy Matthew 

Farris,

Defendants—Appellees,

______________________________

Ikechukwu Hyginus Okorie,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Wells Fargo Bank; Erno D. Lindner,

Defendants—Appellees.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC Nos. 2:24-CV-46, 2:24-CV-61

______________________________

Before Jolly, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 27, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 24-60273 Document: 50-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/27/2024
No. 24-60273

2

Per Curiam:*

This appeal involves a pro se litigant’s bankruptcy proceedings. The 

orders he appeals are interlocutory, and thus, we cannot review them. As 

such, the appeal is dismissed. 

I.

The plaintiff-appellant, Ikechukwu Okorie, filed two separate but 

substantially identical complaints against defendant-appellees First Bank, 

Eileen Shaffer, Timothy Farris, Wells Fargo, and Erno Lindner in federal 

district court. Both complaints arise from the same underlying bankruptcy 

case and expressly state that “[t]he dispute forming the substance of this 

action is based on [the underlying bankruptcy case].” The complaints were

assigned to the same district judge.

The defendant-appellees filed a Joint Motion to Consolidate Related 

Cases, which Okorie opposed. The district court granted defendantappellees’ motion in the Consolidation Order. That same day, the district

court, in response to First Bank’s Motion for Referral to Bankruptcy Court 

and “sua sponte for case management purposes,” issued the Referral Order 

thereby “refer[ing] the consolidated cases to the United States Bankruptcy 

Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.”

II.

Okorie appeals both the Consolidation Order and the Referral Order. 

Both orders, however, are interlocutory, since there is no final judgment. The 

Consolidation Order is “not [a] final judgment[] for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 

1291; [is] not among the type of orders listed in § 1292(a); [was] not certified 

by the district court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) or 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292(b) to be final appealable orders; [and it does] not fall within a 

jurisprudential exception, such as the collateral-order doctrine, that would 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-60273 Document: 50-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/27/2024
No. 24-60273

3

render [it a] final, appealable order.” Hale v. United States, 698 F. App’x 211 

(5th Cir. 2017). Similarly, the Referral Order “merely refers [t]his case to the 

bankruptcy court for further proceedings - clearly indicating that the referral is 

only a preliminary step in [this] lawsuit.” Higdon v. Hensley, 49 F.3d 728 (5th 

Cir. 1995) (quotations omitted). Thus, the Referral Order “does not end the 

litigation on the merits . . . [rather,] it expressly indicates that litigation on the 

merits will resume in the bankruptcy court.” Id.

III.

In sum, this Court cannot review the Consolidation Order nor the Referral Order because they are interlocutory. Accordingly, the appeal is, in all 

respects, 

DISMISSED.

Case: 24-60273 Document: 50-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/27/2024