
    Lee Ann LOVE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Johnny Oliver WISEMAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-16720
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    OCTOBER 3, 2017
    Lee Ann Love, Oakland, CA, pro se
    Johnny Oliver Wiseman, Marina, CA, pro se
    Vicki Lynn Wiseman, Trustees of the Wiseman Family Trust 2002, Marina, CA, Surfside Enterprises, Inc., Mahdi Radwan, Monterey, CA, Mariam S. Marshall, Esquire, Marshall & Ramos, LLP, Pleasant Hill, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Love's request for oral argument, set forth in her opening brief, is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lee Ann Love appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders determining Love’s secured status, and dismissing in part Love’s adversary proceeding against the trustee and the debtors. We review de novo our own jurisdiction and whether a bankruptcy court’s decision is final. Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v. City of Desert Hot Springs (In re City of Desert Hot Springs), 339 F.3d 782, 787 (9th Cir. 2003). We dismiss.

This court lacks jurisdiction because the bankruptcy court’s orders did not dispose of all claims against all defendants in Love’s adversary proceeding. See Walther v. King City Transit Mix, Inc. (In re King City Transit Mix, Inc.), 738 F.2d 1065, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 1984) (bankruptcy court order dismissing one of four counterclaims in adversary proceeding was not final); see also SS Farms, LLC v. Sharp (In re SK Foods, L.P.), 676 F.3d 798, 801-02 (9th Cir. 2012) (district court order affirming interlocutory bankruptcy court order is also interlocutory). Nor did the bankruptcy court direct entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7054. See Walther, 738 F.2d at 1067.

Love’s request to treat this appeal as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, set forth in her opening brief, is denied.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     