
    Bobby STEVENS; et al Plaintiffs, Bobby Stevens; Josephine Stevens Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY; et al Defendants, Ford Motor Co; John Does, whose names are unknown to plaintiffs at this time, but will be substituted by amendment when ascertained; Bill Ethridge Lincoln-Mercury Inc Defendant—Appellees, Gwendolyn HILL Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Ford Motor Company; et al Defendants, Ford Motor Company; Bill Ethridge Lincoln-Mercury Inc; John Does Defendant—Appellees.
    No. 03-60951.
    (Summary Calendar)
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    DECIDED: May 21, 2004.
    Edward Morgan Blackmon, Jr., Blackmon & Blackmon, Canton, MS, Mark I. Burton, Burton & Burton, Kosciusko, MS, Robert George Clark, III, Lexington, MS, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    
      Gene Dickerson Berry, Walker W. Jones, III, Frederick Natale Salvo, III, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, Jackson, MS, for DefendantsAppellees.
    Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs Bobby and Josephine Stevens and Gwendolyn Hill bring this appeal from the district court’s denial of their Motion to Remand to state court their personal injury and property damage suit against defendants Ford Motor Company, Bill Ethridge Lincoln-Mercury and unknown John Does.

“An order denying remand of a case removed to federal court is not a final order within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and, standing by itself cannot be appealed unless certified by the district court according to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).” Poirrier v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 648 F.2d 1063, 1064-65 (5th Cir.1981); Aaron v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 876 F.2d 1157, 1160 (5th Cir.1989); see Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure 2d § 3914.11. When the refusal to remand is coupled with a final judgment, the appellate court has jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion to remand. Aaron, 846 F.2d at 1160.

The district court did not issue a final judgment in this case, nor did it certify its ruling for interlocutory appeal. This appeal is thus DISMISSED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     