for failure to comply with such orders for discovery. Without concluding whether the Court has the constitutional authority to grant or deny final judgment on the merits of the matters pertaining to the underlying claims absent consent of the parties, this Court determines it may grant or deny the pending Joinder, Motion to Compel, Motion for Leave, Motion for Sanctions, and Motion to Reopen as doing so is not a final order that is potentially violative of Stem because there is not a “final determination of the rights of the parties to secure the relief they seek.” Williams v. Midwest Emp’rs Cas. Co., 243 F.3d 208, 209 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing to Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 527 U.S. 198, 204, 119 S.Ct. 1915, 144 L.Ed.2d 184 (1999)); see also In re Lopez, 2016 WL 4546884, at *2-4 (<HOLDING>). c. Joinder Requesting A Protective Order In
holding a bankruptcy court is not a court of the united states entitled to waive filing fees pursuant to 28 usc section 1915a holding that 28 usc  1257 does not permit interlocutory federal review of allegedly selective prosecution holding that under 28 usc  1292b the appellate courts may review only matters in the order not all issues in the case holding that the bankruptcy courts discoveryrelated order was interlocutory and not subject to review pursuant to the requirements of 28 usc  158a3 holding that order denying motion to dismiss a bankruptcy petition is final under 28 usc  1291