Terrance Hollowell v. Chase Home Finance, No. 16-1822 (7th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted September 22, 2016 * Decided September 22, 2016 Before MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge No. 16-1822 TERRANCE HOLLOWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. v. No. 3:16cv134 CHASE HOME FINANCE, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Philip P. Simon, Chief Judge. ORDER Terrance Hollowell appeals the district court’s dismissal of his untimely appeal from a bankruptcy court’s order. We affirm. Hollowell, a debtor in a Chapter 13 case, brought an adversary complaint in bankruptcy court against Chase Home Finance and JPMorgan Chase, alleging that they We have unanimously agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). * No. 16-1822 Page 2 had committed fraud during his bankruptcy proceedings. The bankruptcy court dismissed Hollowell’s complaint for failure to state a claim and on February 18, 2016, denied his motion to amend the complaint. Twenty days later, on March 9, 2016, Hollowell filed a notice of appeal with the district court. The district court concluded that he failed to file his notice of appeal within the 14-day period required by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(a)(1), and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal Hollowell does not meaningfully challenge the district court’s dismissal and instead repeats his claims that the defendants committed fraud and violated his rights to equal protection and due process. Even pro se litigants must comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8), which requires that an appellate brief contain a cogent argument and reasons supporting it. See Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545–46 (7th Cir. 2001). In any event, the district court properly dismissed the appeal because it was filed outside of the 14-day period required by Rule 8002(a)(1). See 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2); In re Sobczak-Slomczewski, 826 F.3d 429, 432 (7th Cir. 2016). AFFIRMED.
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.
