Fortescue v. King ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-1179
WILLIAM NICHOLAS FORTESCUE, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JERRY E. KING, Auctioneer; KING AUCTION &
REALTY COMPANY, INCORPORATED; DAVID G. GRAY,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 98-1180
WILLIAM NICHOLAS FORTESCUE, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JERRY E. KING, Auctioneer; KING AUCTION &
REALTY COMPANY, INCORPORATED; DAVID G. GRAY;
WESTALL, GRAY & CONNOLLY, PA,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 98-1675
WILLIAM NICHOLAS FORTESCUE, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JERRY E. KING; KING AUCTION & REALTY COMPANY,
INCORPORATED; DAVID G. GRAY,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 98-2063
In Re: WILLIAM NICHOLAS FORTESCUE, JR.,
Debtor.
_________________________
WILLIAM NICHOLAS FORTESCUE, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JERRY E. KING, Auctioneer; KING AUCTION &
REALTY COMPANY, INCORPORATED; DAVID G. GRAY,
Defendants - Appellees.
2
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District
Judge. (CA-97-194-1, BK-85-10291, AP-96-1396, MISC-97-3-MC, CA-98-
12-1)
Submitted: April 29, 1999 Decided: May 4, 1999
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Nos. 98-1179 and 98-1180 affirmed and Nos. 98-1675 and 98-2063
dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Nicholas Fortescue, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. David G. Gray,
Jr., WESTALL, GRAY, CONNOLLY & DAVIS, P.A., Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
3
PER CURIAM:
In No. 98-1179, William Nicholas Fortescue appeals from the
district court’s orders dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy
court for failure to file his appeal brief and denying his motion
for reconsideration. Appeal No. 98-1180 is his appeal from the
district court’s order denying his motion to withdraw the reference
of his case to the bankruptcy court. We have reviewed the record
in these two appeals and the district court’s orders and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Fortescue’s motions for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm on the reasoning of
the district court. See Fortescue v. King, Nos. CA-97-194-1; MISC
97-3-MC; BK-85-10291; AP-96-1396 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 22, Nov. 12, &
Dec. 3, 1997).
In No. 98-1675, Fortescue appeals from the district court’s
orders denying his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in
Appeal Nos. 98-1179 and 98-1180 and denying his motion for recon-
sideration. Because we grant his leave to so proceed, this appeal
is moot. Accordingly, we grant Fortescue’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss this appeal as moot.
Appeal No. 98-2063 is Fortescue’s appeal from the district
court’s order denying his motion for leave to file his amended ap-
peal brief out of time. We dismiss the appeal for lack of juris-
diction because the order is not appealable. This court may exer-
cise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994),
4
and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a
final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
We dismiss this appeal as interlocutory.
In conclusion, we grant Fortescue’s pending motions for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court in appeal Nos. 98-1179 and 98-1180, and we dismiss
appeal Nos. 98-1675 and 98-2063. 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.
Nos. 98-1179 and 98-1180 - AFFIRMED
Nos. 98-1675 and 98-2063 - DISMISSED
5