Gary Washington v. South Carolina Community Bank, No. 16-2307 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2307 In re: GARY ALLEN WASHINGTON; MICHELLE ANNE WASHINGTON, Debtors, -----------------------------GARY ALLEN WASHINGTON; MICHELLE ANNE WASHINGTON, Debtors - Appellants, v. SOUTH CAROLINA COMMUNITY MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, BANK; FEDERAL NATIONAL Creditors - Appellees, US TRUSTEE, Trustee - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:16-cv-00128-CMC) Submitted: July 20, 2017 Decided: July 24, 2017 Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alexander B. Wathen, Houston, Texas, for Appellants. Ramona D. Elliott, Deputy Director/General Counsel, P. Matthew Sutko, Associate General Counsel, Wendy Cox, Trial Attorney, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Judy A. Robbins, United States Trustee, John Timothy Stack, Assistant United States Trustee, Linda Barr, Trial Attorney, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Columbia, South Carolina; Carmen V. Ganjehsani, RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Travis Emil Menk, BROCK & SCOTT, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Gary Allen Washington and Michelle Anne Washington appeal from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders denying their second motion for reconsideration of the order granting relief from the automatic stay, denying their request for an extension of time to amend and confirm their plan of reorganization, and dismissing their Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. We have reviewed the record provided on appeal and the arguments of the parties, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Washington v. South Carolina Comm. Bank, No. 3:16-cv-00128-CMC (D.S.C. Oct. 11, 2016). 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. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
