Alice Howell v. NuCar Connection, Inc., No. 18-1420 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1420 ALICE ANNETTE HOWELL; BURL ANDERSON HOWELL, Debtors - Appellants, v. NUCAR CONNECTION, INC.; ALLY FINANCIAL, INC.; STATE OF DELAWARE, Creditors - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:17-cv-00536-BO) Submitted: August 27, 2018 Decided: September 6, 2018 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alice A. Howell, Burl Anderson Howell, Appellants Pro Se. Pamela P. Keenan, KIRSCHBAUM, NANNEY, KEENAN & GRIFFIN, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Alice Annette Howell and Burl Anderson Howell appeal the district court’s order denying their motions and dismissing their appeal of the bankruptcy court’s October 20, 2017 and October 27, 2017 orders. ∗ “Where, as here, a district court acts as a bankruptcy appellate court, our review of [its] decision is plenary.” SG Homes Assoc. v. Marinucci, 718 F.3d 327, 334 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We review the bankruptcy court’s decision independently, reviewing its factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Id. (citations omitted). We also limit our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). With these principles in mind, we have reviewed the bankruptcy court’s orders that were appealed by Appellants, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We grant Appellants leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny their other pending motions. 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 ∗ On appeal, Appellants contend they also provided sufficient notice of their intent to appeal the bankruptcy court’s November 22, 2017 order. We have reviewed the record and find this contention without merit. Moreover, the district court affirmed the rulings in the November 22, 2017 order, and Appellants do not show any error in the rulings. 2