Case Name: 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-19
Citations: 598 F. App'x 190
Docket Number: No. 14-2130
Parties: 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.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 598
Pages: 190–191

Head Matter:
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.
No. 14-2130.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
March 19, 2015.
Submitted: March 17, 2015.
Decided: March 19, 2015.
Mykal S. Ryan, Helen E. Ryan, Appellants Pro Se. Kelly M. Barnhart, Appellee Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
- Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (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. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.