Opinion
No. 11-1553
11-17-2011
STEPHEN THOMAS YELVERTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, and WENDELL W. WEBSTER, in his capacity as Chapter 7 Trustee in Bankruptcy for Steven Thomas Yelverton, Plaintiff, v. YELVERTON FARMS, LTD; PHYLLIS EDMUNDSON; CHARLES EDMUNDSON; DEBORAH MARM, Defendants - Appellees, and WADE H. ATKINSON, JR., Intervenor.
Stephen Thomas Yelverton, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald L. Gibson, ERWIN & ELEAZER, PA, Charlotte, North Carolina; Natalie S. Walker, WEBSTER, FREDERICKSON & BRACKSHAW, Washington, D.C.; John C. Bircher, III, WHITE & ALLEN, PA, New Bern, North Carolina; John Pierce Marshall, Matthew Scott Sullivan, WHITE & ALLEN, PA, Kinston, North Carolina, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:09-cv-00331-FL)
Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen Thomas Yelverton, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald L. Gibson, ERWIN & ELEAZER, PA, Charlotte, North Carolina; Natalie S. Walker, WEBSTER, FREDERICKSON & BRACKSHAW, Washington, D.C.; John C. Bircher, III, WHITE & ALLEN, PA, New Bern, North Carolina; John Pierce Marshall, Matthew Scott Sullivan, WHITE & ALLEN, PA, Kinston, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Stephen Thomas Yelverton seeks to appeal the district court orders determining that he lacked standing, denying his motion to amend, substituting the bankruptcy trustee as plaintiff, and amending the case caption. 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 (1949). The orders Yelverton seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. 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