Celeste Broughton v. Walter Hinson, No. 18-2427 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2427 CELESTE G. BROUGHTON, a/k/a Celeste Gold Broughton, Debtor - Appellant, v. BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATOR, Party-in-Interest - Appellee, BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, f/k/a The Bank of New York, as Trustee, on behalf of the holders of the Alternative Loan Trust 2006-41CB, Morgan Pass Through Certificates Series 2006-41CB; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; CITIBANK, N.A.; WAKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Creditors - Appellees, ESTATE OF ROBERT BROUGHTON. Appellee, WALTER L. HINSON, Trustee - Appellee. No. 19-1014 CELESTE G. BROUGHTON, a/k/a Celeste Gold Broughton, Debtor - Appellant, v. BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATOR, Party-in-Interest - Appellee, BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, f/k/a The Bank of New York, as Trustee, on behalf of the holders of the Alternative Loan Trust 2006-41CB, Morgan Pass Through Certificates Series 2006-41CB; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; CITIBANK, N.A.; WAKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Creditors - Appellees, ESTATE OF ROBERT BROUGHTON, Appellee, WALTER L. HINSON, Trustee - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (5:16-cv-00302-S; 5:16-cv-00302-RE) Submitted: June 26, 2019 Decided: July 5, 2019 Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Celeste G. Broughton, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Charles Behr, OFFICE OF THE BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATOR, Raleigh, North Carolina; Walter Lee Hinson, Jr., WALTER L. HINSON, P.A., Wilson, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Celeste G. Broughton seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying her motions to reconsider several of the court’s previous orders in Broughton’s ongoing bankruptcy proceeding, denying Broughton’s motion to certify other orders for immediate appeal, and ordering Broughton to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with a prior court order. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The orders Broughton seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction and deny Broughton’s motion for restraining orders. 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. DISMISSED 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.
