The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
24-1944•Mark Eastham; Peter Spark v. Robert Paul Sharpe
24-1944Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 2, 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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.