Daryl Green v. 1900 Capital Trust II

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 21, 2021
Docket20-1833
StatusUnpublished

This text of Daryl Green v. 1900 Capital Trust II (Daryl Green v. 1900 Capital Trust II) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Daryl Green v. 1900 Capital Trust II, (4th Cir. 2021).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1833

DARYL A. GREEN,

Debtor - Appellant,

v.

1900 CAPITAL TRUST II, BY U.S. BANK TRUST NEWREZ LLC, d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing,

Creditor - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:19-cv-02270-TDC)

Submitted: January 19, 2021 Decided: January 21, 2021

Before AGEE, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daryl A. Green, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Marian Abood-Carroll, ORLANS PC, Troy, Michigan, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Daryl A. Green appeals the district court’s order affirming in part the bankruptcy

court’s order overruling his objections to Appellee’s proof of claim, vacating that order in

part, and remanding to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings. 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 (1949). The order Green seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor

an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See In re The Wallace & Gale Co., 72 F.3d

21, 24 (4th Cir. 1995) (“District court orders remanding cases to the bankruptcy court for

further consideration are not, ordinarily, final orders.”). Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Daryl Green v. 1900 Capital Trust II, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daryl-green-v-1900-capital-trust-ii-ca4-2021.