USCA4 Appeal: 25-1300 Doc: 18 Filed: 12/01/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1300

GERTRUDE CORETTA FENNELL HAMILTON,

Debtor – Appellant,

v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, U.S. Bank National Association As Legal Title Trustee for RMTP Trust, Series 2021 BKM-TT-V; RUSHMORE SERVICING; MICHELLE R. GHIDOTTI-GONSALVES, Esq.; MEREDITH COKER, Esq.; RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; BRIAN CAMPBELL, Esq.; ANNE MARIE THRONE, Esq.; PHH MORTGAGE SERVICES; JASON WYMAN, Esq.; GENTRY COLLINS, Esq.; TRAVIS MENK, Esq.; OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,

Creditors – Appellees,

and

JAMES M. WYMAN,

Trustee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:24-cv-05918-RMG-MHC)

Submitted: November 25, 2025 Decided: December 1, 2025

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1300 Doc: 18 Filed: 12/01/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gertrude Coretta Fennell Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se. Diana C. Theologou, MCMICHAEL TAYLOR GRAY, LLC, Peachtree Corners, Georgia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1300 Doc: 18 Filed: 12/01/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Gertrude Coretta Fennell Hamilton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

her motion to reassign her case and affirming the magistrate judge’s order denying her

motions for a stay pending appeal. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

orders,

, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,

;

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,

(1949).

The order Hamilton seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory

or collateral order. See In re Va. Elec. & Power Co.,

, 364 (4th Cir. 1976)

(holding that denial of a motion to disqualify is not a final and appealable order); In re

Atencio,

(10th Cir. 1990) (“When a district court, acting in its appellate

capacity, denies a stay of a bankruptcy order pending appeal, the court of appeals lacks

jurisdiction to review that interlocutory order under [28 U.S.C.] § 1292(a).”). Accordingly,

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 this court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3