UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2582
JANICE H. POWELL; GEORGE T. POWELL, JR.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
FIRST MOUNT VERNON INDUSTRIAL LOAN ASSOCIATION; ARTHUR G.
BENNETT; DALE E. DUNCAN; JOHN F. GONZALES; HILTON T.
HUTCHENS, JR.; STAFFORD R. PEEBLES, JR.; J. EDWARD SIMS,
SR.; ALAINE FIELDS; MICHELLE PARKER-FIELDS; MERCEDES L.
MILLER; EDWARD L. MILLER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:11-cv-00695-CCE-JEP)
Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 1, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Janice H. Powell; George T. Powell, Jr., Appellants Pro Se. H.
Terry Hutchens, HUTCHENS, SENTER & BRITTON, Fayetteville, North
Carolina; Gabrielle Amber Pittman, Frederick Kingsley Sharpless,
SHARPLESS & STAVOLA, PA, Greensboro, North Carolina; Michael
Andrew Grace, Sr., GRACE, TISDALE & CLIFTON, PA, Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, for Appellees. Mercedes L. Miller; Edward
Miller, Appellees Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Janice H. Powell and George T. Powell, Jr. seek to
appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation and granting the motions to dismiss filed
by Defendants Sims and Peebles, denying without prejudice the
motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Mercedes Miller, and
granting the amended motion to set aside default filed by
Defendants First Mount Vernon Industrial Loan Association,
Bennett, Duncan, Gonzales, and Hutchens. Appellees Sims,
Peebles, Edward Miller, and Mercedes Miller have moved to
dismiss the appeal on various grounds. 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 order the Powells
seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny the pending motions to
dismiss as moot. 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