VIGIL, Judge.

{1} Cher and Kevin Bailey (Appellants) appealed from the district court’s summary judgment order. This Court’s first calendar notice proposed to summarily affirm. After Appellants filed a memorandum in opposition to the first calendar notice, it became apparent that there was no final order from which to appeal, as a motion for reconsideration was filed below after the notice of appeal, but within the time for filing a motion to reconsider. [1 st MIO 12-13; RP 283, 293, 295] It did not appear from the record that the motion had been expressly ruled upon by the district court, *3 so this Court’s second calendar notice proposed to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order. Appellants filed a second memorandum in opposition essentially requesting that we defer acting on the appeal until the district court holds a hearing on their motion for reconsideration and enters a ruling. [2 nd MIO 2-3] It appears from the record below that no such hearing has occurred, nor is there any way to determine when a hearing will be scheduled and a final decision entered. For this reason, and those stated in the second calendar notice, we dismiss the appeal. Appellants can appeal again, if necessary, following entry of the district court’s decision. IT IS SO ORDERED. {2}

_________________________________ MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge WE CONCUR:

___________________________

M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge

___________________________

HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge