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)
22-1525•Edwin Eugene Bell, Jr.; Miranda Cisneros Bell v. Dyck-O’neal, Inc.
22-1525Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 24, 2022
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1525
EDWIN EUGENE BELL, JR.; MIRANDA CISNEROS BELL,
Debtors - Appellants,
v.
DYCK-O’NEAL, INC.,
Creditor - Appellee,
and
BRIAN ANDREW TUCCI,
Trustee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00595-CCB)
Submitted: November 22, 2022 Decided: November 28, 2022
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edwin Eugene Bell, Jr., Miranda Cisneros Bell, Appellants Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Edwin Eugene Bell, Jr., and Miranda Cisneros Bell (“the Bells”) appeal the district
court’s orders (1) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying reconsideration of its
earlier order overruling the Bells’ objection to a claim and (2) denying reconsideration.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Bell v. Dyck-O’Neal, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00595-CCB (D.
Md. Nov. 12, 2020; May 24, 2022). We deny the motion for judicial notice and other
relief. 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.