David Kimbro Stephens appeals the district court’s 1 final order, in which it affirmed the bankruptcy court’s 2 orders denying his motions to intervene, for reconsideration, and for new trial. After careful review, this court affirms.

We conclude Stephens’s motions requesting intervention and reconsideration were properly denied. The bankruptcy court did not err in finding that the motion to intervene was untimely. See Fed. R. Bankr.P. 7024; Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2) and (b)(1) (mandatory and permissive intervention both require “timely motion”); Tweedle v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 527 F.3d 664, 671 (8th Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion review; identifying factors to consider).

Because Stephens was denied intervention, he does not have standing to appeal the bankruptcy court’s final order or its orders denying his motions for continuance of trial, for amendment of the judgment, or for a new trial. See Karcher v. May, 484 U.S. 72, 77, 108 S.Ct. 388, 98 L.Ed.2d 327 (1987) (“One who is not an original party to a lawsuit may of course become a party by intervention- But we have consistently applied the general rule that one who is not a party or has not been treated as a party to a judgment has no right to appeal therefrom.”) (internal citation omitted).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.