Case Name: In re: RECEIVER. United States of America, Plaintiff, and Beattie B. Ashmore, Receiver, Appellee, v. Michael Thomas; Carolyn Thomas, Respondents-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-12
Citations: 474 F. App'x 335
Docket Number: No. 11-1642
Parties: In re: RECEIVER. United States of America, Plaintiff, and Beattie B. Ashmore, Receiver, Appellee, v. Michael Thomas; Carolyn Thomas, Respondents-Appellants.
Judges: Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 335–336

Head Matter:
In re: RECEIVER. United States of America, Plaintiff, and Beattie B. Ashmore, Receiver, Appellee, v. Michael Thomas; Carolyn Thomas, Respondents-Appellants.
No. 11-1642.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 31, 2012.
Decided: June 12, 2012.
Alvin G. Matthews, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellants. L. Walter Tolli-son, III, Lauren S. Price, The Tollison Law Firm, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina; Thomas E. Vanderbloemen, Galli-van, White & Boyd, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael and Carolyn Thomas seek to appeal the district court's order denying leave to sue the Receiver in North Carolina state court and finding that the Receiver had jurisdiction over contested assets. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). While 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(2) does allow for appeal of certain specific interlocutory orders concerning receivers, this case does not concern one of those orders. The order the Thomases seek 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.