Unpublished Dispositionalexander Grant & Company, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Robert B. Mcalister, et al., Defendants-appellees,connie J. Harris, Defendant-third-party Plaintiff-appellee, v. Jose L. Gomez, et al., Third-party Defendants-appellees,grant Thornton, Third-party Plaintiff-appellee, v. Marvin L. Warner, Sr., Third-party Defendant-appellant.ohio Deposit Guarantee Fund, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Grant Thornton, Fka Alexander Grant & Company; Burton M.bongard, Defendants-appellees,marvin L. Warner, Defendant-appellant, 900 F.2d 259 (6th Cir. 1990)

ORDER

The appellant is the third-party defendant and defendant in two related district court actions. He appeals from a district court order, certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), which held that a settlement agreement was entered into in good faith and barred certain claims for contribution. These appeals were stayed under 11 U.S.C. § 362 due to the appellant's petition in bankruptcy, and the appellant was directed to file periodic status reports. The appellant's most recent status report indicated that these cases had been dismissed with prejudice in the district court. The dismissal is subject to vacation if either the appellant's modified reorganization plan is not confirmed, or the confirmation is overturned upon appeal. The appellant noted the plan was confirmed but that an appeal had been taken from the confirmation order. Appellant anticipated a disposition by August 1990. Shortly thereafter, the appellee, Grant Thornton, moved for dismissal of the appeal based on the stipulation of settlement in the district court. The appellant has not responded.

In view of the district court's dismissal of the action, we conclude that this court is without jurisdiction.

It is therefore ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is granted, and these appeals are dismissed.