Unpublished Dispositionin Re Theda G. Harford, Debtor,theda G. Harford, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Potomac Valley Farm Credit, Aca, the Federal Land Bank,grant County Bank, Moore Brothers Company, Frank Cline &sons, Inc., the Valley of Virginia Cooperative Milkproducers Association, Defendants-appellees, 929 F.2d 692 (4th Cir. 1991)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 929 F.2d 692 (4th Cir. 1991) Submitted Jan. 29, 1991. Decided March 28, 1991

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Chief District Judge. (CA-90-132-E)

Theda G. Harford, appellant pro se.

James Willoughby Martin, Jr., Siegrist, Spelsberg, White, Martin & Conley, Clarksburg, W.Va., for appellees.

N.D.W. Va.

DISMISSED.

Before SPROUSE and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:


Theda G. Harford appeals from the district court's order denying leave to appeal an interlocutory order of the bankruptcy court. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 this Court has jurisdiction over appeals from final orders. A final order is one which disposes of all issues in dispute as to all parties. It "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945).

As the bankruptcy order appealed from is not a final order, the district court properly denied leave to appeal. Circuit courts do not have jurisdiction over appeals from final district court orders pertaining to interlocutory bankruptcy decisions. In re Looney, 823 F.2d 788 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 977 (1987).1 

Finding no basis for appellate jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.

DISMISSED.

 1

Harford has also filed in this Court a motion to continue the automatic stay. Because she is requesting relief already provided by 11 U.S.C. § 362, this issue is moot

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.