Solomond v. Raynor

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: December 1, 1998
• Docket: 97-2569
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2569

In Re: LINDA SUE RAYNOR, a/k/a Lyn Raynor,

Debtor. _________________________

JOHN P. SOLOMOND, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LINDA SUE RAYNOR, a/k/a Lyn Raynor, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-97-1062-A, BK-94-13428, AP-94-1507)

Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 1, 1998

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John P. Solomond, Appellant Pro Se. David Edgar Jones, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

John P. Solomond appeals from the district court’s order (1)

affirming the bankruptcy court’s determination that the debt owed

to Solomond by Linda Sue Raynor is dischargeable in bankruptcy, and

(2) remanding to the bankruptcy court on the issue of attorney’s

fees. With respect to the affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s

order discharging the debt, our review of the record discloses no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. Because the district

court remanded the attorney’s fee award to the bankruptcy court for

clarification of the standard and basis upon which fees were

awarded, the appeal as to this issue is interlocutory and we ac-

cordingly dismiss.* See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292 (1994); Cohen v.

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART

* The order discharging the debt is a final appealable order despite the pending attorney’s fee issue. See Bernstein v. Menard, 728 F.2d 252, 253 (4th Cir. 1984).