Mithun Banerjee v. Timothy Branigan

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1871 Doc: 31 Filed: 11/03/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1871 MITHUN BANERJEE, Debtor - Appellant, and MALANCHA BANERJEE, Debtor, v. TIMOTHY P. BRANIGAN, Trustee - Appellee. No. 24-1872 MITHUN BANERJEE, Debtor - Appellant, v. TIMOTHY P. BRANIGAN, Trustee - Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1871 Doc: 31 Filed: 11/03/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (8:24-cv-00706-DLB; 8:24-cv-00420-DLB) Submitted: October 30, 2025 Decided: November 3, 2025 Before RUSHING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mithun Banerjee, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1871 Doc: 31 Filed: 11/03/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated cases, Mithun Banerjee seeks to appeal the district court’s order directing him to pay the filing fees or file a properly supported application to proceed in forma pauperis in his appeals from the bankruptcy court’s orders denying his motion to recuse the bankruptcy court judge and the Chapter 13 trustee and dismissing his Chapter 13 bankruptcy case. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The district court’s order requiring Banerjee to either pay the filing fee for these two appeals or apply for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is not a final order, nor is it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Banerjee’s motions to strike the Appellee’s informal response brief and related docket entries, and we dismiss these appeals for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3