Cynthia Holmes v. Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P. A., No. 20-408 (4th Cir. 2020)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-408 CYNTHIA C. HOLMES, a/k/a C. Holmes, a/k/a Cynthia Holmes, a/k/a Cynthia Collie Holmes, Petitioner, v. HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD, P. A., Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:20-cv-000234-BHH-MHC) Submitted: December 17, 2020 Decided: December 21, 2020 Before THACKER, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cynthia C. Holmes, Petitioner Pro Se. Mary McFarland Caskey, Mary Cothonneau Eldridge, HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cynthia Holmes petitions for permission to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) the district court’s order denying her motion to disqualify the magistrate judge from this bankruptcy appeal and her motion seeking review and reconsideration should the magistrate judge deny Holmes’ motion to remand. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). In order to be reviewed, the interlocutory order must be certified by the district court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Because the district court did not certify the order, we deny Holmes’ petition for permission to appeal. ∗ We grant Holmes’ motion to exceed length limitations for the petition. 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. PETITION DENIED ∗ We also note that Holmes failed to file her petition within ten days after the entry of the district court’s order as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). 2

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.