The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
17-1728•In re: ELIZABETH COLE v. James B. Nutter & Company; Substitute Trustee Services, Inc.
17-1728Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitDec 27, 2017
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1728
In re: ELIZABETH COLE,
Debtor,
--------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH COLE; VINCENT LINEBERGER,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
JAMES B. NUTTER & COMPANY; SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants – Appellees,
v.
WARREN L. TADLOCK, Standing Chapter 13 Trustee,
Trustee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:17-cv-00078-GCM)
Submitted: December 21, 2017 Decided: December 27, 2017
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elizabeth Cole, Vincent Lineberger, Appellants Pro Se. Lacey Moore Duskin,
HUTCHENS, SENTER, KELLAM & PETTIT, P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Elizabeth Cole and Vincent Lineberger appeal from the district court’s orders
dismissing their appeal from the bankruptcy court for failure to timely pay the filing fee as
directed by the court and denying their motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Cole v. James B. Nutter & Co., No. 3:17-cv-00078-GCM (W.D.N.C. Mar.
14, 2017; May 15, 2017); see In re SPR Corp., 45 F.3d 70, 74-75 (4th Cir. 1995)
(explaining factors court should consider before dismissal). 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 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.