Case Name: Pepi SCHAFLER, Appellant, v. Randall R. NEWSOME; et al., Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-11
Citations: 125 F. App'x 110
Docket Number: No. 03-17330; D.C. No. CV-03-05034-PJH
Parties: Pepi SCHAFLER, Appellant, v. Randall R. NEWSOME; et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 125
Pages: 110–111

Head Matter:
Pepi SCHAFLER, Appellant, v. Randall R. NEWSOME; et al., Appellees.
No. 03-17330.
D.C. No. CV-03-05034-PJH.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 7, 2005.
Decided Feb. 11, 2005.
Pepi Schafler, Walnut Creek, CA, pro se.
Randall R. Newsome, Oakland, CA, pro se.
Before FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Schafler’s request for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Pepi Schafler appeals pro se from the district court's order denying her motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) to with draw reference of her Chapter 7 case to the bankruptcy court. We lack jurisdiction over this appeal because "orders denying motions for withdrawal of reference are . not final appealable orders." Abney v. Kissel Co. (In re Kissel Co.), 105 F.3d 1324, 1325 (9th Cir.1997) (order). Accordingly, we dismiss Schafler's appeal.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.