Case Name: William P. TRAINOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS OF MEDICAL DIAGNOSTICS PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED; Wood Gundy London Limited, Defendants-Appellees, v. Medical Diagnostic Products, Incorporated, Debtor, U.S. Trustee-Baltimore, Trustee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-31
Citations: 432 F. App'x 274
Docket Number: No. 10-2092
Parties: William P. TRAINOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS OF MEDICAL DIAGNOSTICS PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED; Wood Gundy London Limited, Defendants-Appellees, v. Medical Diagnostic Products, Incorporated, Debtor, U.S. Trustee-Baltimore, Trustee.
Judges: Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 457
Pages: 274–274

Head Matter:
William P. TRAINOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS OF MEDICAL DIAGNOSTICS PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED; Wood Gundy London Limited, Defendants-Appellees, v. Medical Diagnostic Products, Incorporated, Debtor, U.S. Trustee-Baltimore, Trustee.
No. 10-2092.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 26, 2011.
Decided: May 31, 2011.
William P. Trainor, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Joseph Meehan, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William P. Trainor seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for a jury trial in his appeal from a bankruptcy court order. 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). The order Trainor seeks 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.