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)
18-1819•Alice Annette Howell; Burl Anderson Howell v. Nucar Connection, Inc.; Ally Financial, Inc.; State of Delaware
18-1819Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 21, 2018
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1819
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, Chief District Judge. (5:17-cv-00536-BO)
Submitted: November 15, 2018 Decided: November 21, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Alice Annette Howell and Burl Anderson Howell appeal the district court’s order
denying their post-judgment motion. We previously affirmed the district court’s order
dismissing their appeal from two of the bankruptcy court’s orders. See Howell v. NuCar
Connection, Inc., 736 F. App’x 416 (4th Cir. 2018). We also denied their motion asking
us to vacate a subsequent order of the bankruptcy court. Appellants filed a copy of their
motion in the district court, and the district court also denied it. We find no reversible
error in the district court’s denial. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See
Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 258-59 (4th Cir. 2014); Howell v. NuCar Connection,
Inc., No. 5:17-cv-00536-BO (E.D.N.C. July 12, 2018). We grant Appellants leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and deny the pending motion to dismiss as moot. 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.