Case Name: In re: Bruce BENNETT, Sr., Debtor. Bruce Bennett, Sr., Debtor-Appellant, v. Bay View Bank; HFTA First Financial; Manufacturers & Traders Trust Company, as trustee for Securitization Series 1997-3 Agreement dated 6/12/97, Creditors-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-28
Citations: 172 F. App'x 486
Docket Number: No. 05-2028
Parties: In re: Bruce BENNETT, Sr., Debtor. Bruce Bennett, Sr., Debtor—Appellant, v. Bay View Bank; HFTA First Financial; Manufacturers & Traders Trust Company, as trustee for Securitization Series 1997-3 Agreement dated 6/12/97, Creditors—Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 343
Pages: 486–487

Head Matter:
In re: Bruce BENNETT, Sr., Debtor. Bruce Bennett, Sr., Debtor—Appellant, v. Bay View Bank; HFTA First Financial; Manufacturers & Traders Trust Company, as trustee for Securitization Series 1997-3 Agreement dated 6/12/97, Creditors—Appellees.
No. 05-2028.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 23, 2006.
Decided: Feb. 28, 2006.
Bruce Bennett, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Weston Adams, III, McAngus, Goudelock & Courie, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Bruce Bennett, Sr., seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order granting the Ap-pellees' motion to include a bankruptcy court order in the record on appeal. 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 Bennett seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Bennett's motion to proceed on appeal in forma pau-peris and 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.