Gregory Myers v. Offit Kurman, P.A.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 30, 2024
• Docket: 20-2309
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2309 Doc: 115 Filed: 05/30/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-2309

In re: GREGORY B. MYERS,

Debtor.

-----------------------------------

OFFIT KURMAN, P.A.,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

and

ROGER SCHLOSSBERG,

Trustee - Appellee,

SERV TRUST,

Defendant,

v.

GREGORY B. MYERS,

Debtor - Appellant,

BARBARA ANN KELLY,

Appellant. USCA4 Appeal: 20-2309 Doc: 115 Filed: 05/30/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:18-cv-02536-PX)

Submitted: April 18, 2024 Decided: May 30, 2024

Before HARRIS and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Laurin H. Mills, Brian P. Donnelly, WERTHER & MILLS, LLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant Barbara Ann Kelly; Gregory B. Myers, Appellant Pro Se. Frank J. Mastro, SCHLOSSBERG | MASTRO, Hagerstown, Maryland, for Appellee Roger Schlossberg, Trustee. Gregory P. Johnson, OFFIT KURMAN, P.A., Columbia, Maryland, for Appellee Offit Kurman, P.A.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 20-2309 Doc: 115 Filed: 05/30/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Barbara Ann Kelly and Gregory B. Myers (“Appellants”) appeal the district court’s

order dismissing their bankruptcy appeal for failure to comply with the court’s order

directing them to request an official transcript from the official court reporter and file a

corrected opening brief using the official transcript. On appeal, they contest the propriety

of the district court’s dismissal order and they seek to challenge the bankruptcy court’s

order approving the sale of a parcel of property. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

To the extent Appellants seek to appeal the bankruptcy court’s order approving the

sale of real property, we dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. A party

seeking to appeal an order entered in a bankruptcy case must file a notice of appeal

within 14 days of entry of the order from which he appeals. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1).

The timely filing of a notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 8002 is jurisdictional. In re

Berman-Smith, 737 F.3d 997, 1002 (5th Cir 2013).

The bankruptcy court entered its order approving the sale of real property on

October 26, 2016, and the appeal period expired on November 8, 2016. Although subject

matter jurisdiction may be raised “at any time, including on direct appeal,” In re Bulldog

Trucking, Inc., 147 F.3d 347, 352 (4th Cir. 1998), because Appellants did not timely note

an appeal from the sale order, this court does not have jurisdiction to review the propriety

of that order, see Berman-Smith, 737 F.3d at 1003 (“the failure to file a timely notice of

appeal . . . leaves the district court, and this court, without jurisdiction to hear the appeal”);

In re Caterbone, 640 F.3d 108, 113 (3d Cir. 2011) (holding that Rule 8002(a) is

3 USCA4 Appeal: 20-2309 Doc: 115 Filed: 05/30/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

jurisdictional and concluding that the untimely filing of an appeal to the district court “also

bars [the court of appeals] from reviewing the merits of [the] appeal to [that court]”).

Turning to Appellants’ challenge to the dismissal of their bankruptcy appeal for

failure to comply with the district court’s order, we have reviewed the record submitted on

appeal and the arguments of the parties and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm the district court’s order. Myers v. Offit Kurman, P.A., No. 8:18-cv-02536-PX

(D. Md. Nov. 12, 2020); see Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989) (providing

standard).

We grant Myers’ motion for leave to file an informal brief, and we deny all

remaining pending motions. 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 IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART