
    Stephen C. SIEBER, Movant/Debtor; Derrick S. Sieber, Movant/Party in Interest; Christopher Petito, Movant/Creditor; Ronald Williams, Movant/Creditor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Charles Langdon, Movant/Creditor, Plaintiff, v. The WASHINGTON POST COMPANIES; Angie’s List; Jeanne Crouse, Assistant U.S. Trustee-Greenbelt; Leander Barnhill, Counsel for Assistant U.S. Trustee; Cheryl Rose; James Hoffman, Special Counsel for Trustee; Offit/Kirman, Law Firm of Trustee’s Counsel; Keith Havens; Williams and Connolly, Law Firm for the Washington Post; Clarkson McDow, Region IV U.S. Trustee; Ice Miller, LLP, Law Firm for Angie’s List; Bracewell and Giuliani, LLP, Second Law Firm for Angie’s List; Paul Pogue, c/o Anthony H. Anikeef, Bracewell & Guiliani, LLP; Thomas Meadows, c/o Anthony H. Anikeef, Bracewell & Guiliani, LLP; John Kelly, c/o Kevin Hardy, Williams & Connolly, LLP; District of Columbia, c/o Todd Kim, Esq.; Robert Harris, c/o Todd King, Esq.; John Poole, c/o Christopher Hoge, Esq.; Todd Johannsen, c/o Charles Cate, Esq.; Monica Hammock, c/o Dale Sanders, Esq., Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 11-1364.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 29, 2011.
    Decided: Oct. 4, 2011.
    Stephen Charles Sieber, Derrick S. Sie-ber, Christopher Petito, Ronald Williams, Appellants Pro Se. James Martin Hoffman, Offit Kurman, PA, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Appellants seek to appeal the district court’s order denying their motion to withdraw the order of reference of Stephen Sieber’s bankruptcy case to the bankruptcy court and denying Sieber’s motion requesting the court to adopt his proposed order. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order the Appellants seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an ap-pealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Appellants’ motion to consolidate this appeal with Appeal No. 11-1857, and 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.  