Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
24-1944•Mark Eastham; Peter Spark v. Robert Paul Sharpe
24-1944Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit02.09.2025
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1944
MARK EASTHAM; PETER SPARK,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
ROBERT PAUL SHARPE,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
ALGERNON LEE BUTLER, III, Chapter 7 Trustee for Port City Contracting
Services, Inc.,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:24-mc-00003-D)
Submitted: August 28, 2025 Decided: September 2, 2025
Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Robert Paul Sharpe, Appellant Pro Se. John Charles Bircher, III, DAVIS HARTMAN
WRIGHT PLLC, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Robert Paul Sharpe seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion to
withdraw the reference of an adversary proceeding to the bankruptcy court and denying his
motion for reconsideration. Sharpe also filed a motion and a supplemental motion to
consolidate this appeal with two other appeals he has pending in this court. We deny the
motions to consolidate these appeals. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292;
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).
The orders Sharpe 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
-- 3 of 3 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.