Meadows v. U.S. Bank

Filing 9

ORDER Affirming the rulings of the Bankruptcy Court. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 12/18/15. (cmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETER PHILIP MEADOWS,

*

l:15-cv-041

*

Debtor
*
*
*

PETER PHILIP MEADOWS,

Appellant,
*
*

U.S.

BANK, N.A.,

Trustee

Bankruptcy Case:

*

14-11431-SDB

as Legal Title

for Truman

2013

SC4
*

TITLE TRUST,

*

Appellee.

ORDER

Presently

before

the

Court

is

Appellant

Meadows's appeal from the Bankruptcy Court.

Peter

Philip

For the reasons set

forth below, the Bankruptcy Court is AFFIRMED.

I.

On

August

foreclosure

5,

auction

2014,
and

the

Background

Appellant's
holder

of

house

the

security

Bank, N.A. ("U.S. Bank"), was the winning bidder.1
same

day,

Appellant

filed,

pro

se,

for

was

sold
deed,

at
U.S.

Later on that

bankruptcy

in

the

1 The Court has not located a document in the record to verify the date

of this sale and the parties have not cited to one, but both sides indicate

on appeal and indicated in the court below that the sale took place on this
date.

Southern

District

of

Georgia,

which

stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C § 362.

resulted

an

automatic

Doc.

(See Bankr.

in

1.)

This was

not Appellant's first bankruptcy.

He has filed on two previous

occasions:

which was dismissed in 2012,

he

first filed in 2010,

and a second time in 2012,

re Meadows,

No.

No.

12-10695

10-12221

(Bankr.

which was dismissed in 2013.

(Bankr.

S.D.

Ga.

S.D.

2012).

Ga.

2010);

See In

In re

Additionally,

Meadows,

U.S.

Bank is

not the first entity to hold the security deed to the property.

The

record

U.S.

Bank

indicates
(Bankr.

that

Doc.

Wells

Fargo

Ex.

at

12,

A

the deed prior to Wells Fargo.

On

August

automatic

14,

stay

2014,

that

2014,

Bank moved

for

U.S.

the

case.

(Bankr.

moved

Doc.

35.)

hearing on October 2,
so

that

Appellant

retained counsel,

20,

2014,

counsel

Bankr.

at

which

The

relief

Doc.

the

filing

12.)

stay

Bankruptcy

from

the

and

to

On September

or

Court

dismiss
then

the

held

a

2014, but postponed discussing the merits
could

retain

counsel.

After

Appellant

time
time

to

file

that

briefs

Court
on

the

trust

account

the

Appellant's

issues.

(See

remit

attorney's

hearing,

gave

ordered Appellant-while the issues were being briefed-to
his

at

Bankruptcy

Court

to

Also

the

Bankruptcy

$3,900.00

57.)

extend

to

the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing on October

additional

Doc.

to

deed

12, Ex. A.)

bankruptcy

(Bankr.

the

and other entities held

Doc.

followed

Appellant

1),

(See Bankr.

validate the foreclosure sale.

30,

transferred

and

to

make

timely

payments of $1,300.00 per month to that account, which Appellant

apparently followed to an extent.

November 5,

Appellant

2014 Order,

failed

November

5,

to make

2014,

those

payments,

the

foreclosure.

Appellant's

addressed Appellant's
U.S.

Bank's

motion

it would

63.)

In a

validate

attorney

the

grant

U.S.

Doc.

57.)

brief

that

(Bankr.
filed

request to extend the

to

Doc.

the Bankruptcy Court explained that if

Bank's motion and validate
On

(Id.; Bankr.

a

automatic

foreclosure.

stay and

(Bankr.

Doc.

58.)

On January 16,

as

counsel

2015,

because

of

Appellant's attorney moved to withdraw

disagreements

with

Appellant,

and

the

record indicates that he

sent Appellant notice of his intent to

withdraw on December

2014.

that notice,

remind

you

mortgage

that

which

September,
was

due

Appellant's

the

payments

$3,900.00

(Bankr.

Doc.

attorney stated:

Court

into

my

ordered

trust

you

75.)

to

make

account.

& November 2014.

on December

2015,

1st,

U.S.

2014."

Notably,

in

"[P]lease allow me to

I

represents mortgage payments

October,

January 14,

19,

your

monthly

currently

for

hold

the months

of

Your next mortgage payment

(Bankr.

Doc.

75,

Ex.

A.)

On

Bank filed with the Bankruptcy Court an

affidavit stating that Appellant was in default of the November
5th Order because he
account.

On

(Bankr.

had failed to make payments into the trust

Doc.

February

17,

77.)

2015,

assistance of his attorney,

violation

of

a

stay

that

Appellant

filed,

without

the

a motion based on standing and the

resulted

from

the

2012

bankruptcy.

(Bankr.

Doc. 87.)

matters

on

The Bankruptcy Court held a hearing on these

February

24,

2015.

At

the

hearing,

the

Bankruptcy

Court heard from Appellant's counsel and opposing counsel about

the

extension

also

allowed

of

the

stay

Appellant

and

to

validating

address

concerns

Following

foreclosure.
raised

Appellant's

in

It
his

February

17th

arguments,

the Bankruptcy Court granted his motion to withdraw.

In the end,

brief.

his

the

attorney's

the Bankruptcy Court denied the motion to extend the

stay and granted the motion
Bankr.

Docs.

91,

Court

relied

on

under

the

92.)

In

Appellant's

November

foreclosure.

to

5th

(Bankr.

Order
Doc.

validate

the

written

failure
as

the

the

91.)

to

Order,

make

basis

But

foreclosure.

the

the

Bankruptcy

timely

for

(See

payments

validating

record

from

the
that

hearing indicates that the Bankruptcy Court also determined that
the property was not subject to the bankruptcy stay because the
foreclosure

sale

bankruptcy.

Additionally,

hearing

argument

took

from

place

before

Appellant

filed

for

after reviewing certain documents and

Appellant,

the

Bankruptcy

Court

ruled

against Appellant on the arguments he brought on his own behalf.
Appellant now appeals to this Court.

II.

Legal Standard

"Findings of fact by a bankruptcy court on an appeal to the

district

court

are

standard of review.
to

the

facts

Hughes v.

at

*1

Ga.

(S.D.

general,

by

reviewed

under

Findings of law,
a

bankruptcy

Dep't of Revenue,

Ga.

May

[courts]

5,

2008)

McRay,

omitted)

380

F.

are

erroneous'

reviewed

CV 407-145,

(citations

de

novo."

2008 WL 1967500,

omitted).

Also,

"[i]n

show leniency to pro se litigants not enjoyed

by those with the benefit of a

v.

^clearly

and the application of law

court
No.

the

App'x

862,

legal

863

education."

(11th

Cir.

Christiansen

2010)

(citation

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Ill.

Discussion

Appellant's brief to this Court references several issues.2
Although the exact issues he wishes to appeal are unclear,

the

2 The Court notes that Appellant filed two briefs.
The first brief is
labeled "Draft," and the Clerk's office indicates that Appellant notified the
Court that he mistakenly filed that brief.
Accordingly, this Order addresses

the arguments raised in the second brief.

Nonetheless, the Court notes that
Only a few different arguments
appear to be raised in the first brief: a Due Process violation, a 42 § 1983
claim, a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") claim, and a violation
of "The Georgia Fair Lending Act."
The Court declines to address these
issues thoroughly but notes that they all fail.
Although Appellant is
unclear, the Court assumes his Due Process claim is based on claims that he
could not present certain documents. As discussed below, Appellant was given
a chance to speak on his own behalf and present documents at the February
24th hearing, and there is no evidence that the Bankruptcy Court kept him
the briefs appear to raise similar claims.

from doing so.
See Melvin v.

Accordingly, Appellant has not shown a Due Process violation.
C.I.R.,

303 F.

App'x 791,

793

(11th Cir.

2008)

("Rudimentary

due process includes reasonable notice and an opportunity to rebut the
charges and be heard."). Appellant's other claims are against a law firm not
a party to this bankruptcy proceeding, and there is no indication that
Appellant brought these claims in the court below. Even if the Court were to
assume that it is proper to bring these claims for the first time on appeal
from a bankruptcy court-which it does not-Appellant's claims still fail.
First, his FDCPA claim merely references a law firm it claims violated the

Court

attempts to thoroughly address Appellant's concerns.

Court notes

that the

issues

the

Bankruptcy

he

essence of Appellant's

sought

Court.

to

The

raise
Court,

on

his

appeal
own

therefore,

The

is based on

behalf

focuses

in
on

the
those

issues.

A.
A

Appellant's attempt to present documents
large part of Appellant's appeal rests

the Bankruptcy Court

Although

Appellant
U.S.

by

his

brief

claims

is

not

that

Inc.

banks,

("MERS"),

standing

he

clear

on

the

wanted to

it

appears

documents

that

regarding

foreclose and documents that show fraud

Mortgage

to

issue,

present

Electronic

and certain law firms.

relate

claim that

refused to allow him to present documents.

Bank's standing to

different

on his

Appellant's

Registration

Systems,

The documents relating to

arguments

that

an

alleged

violation of a previous stay prevents this foreclosure and that
U.S.

Bank could not foreclose without holding a promissory note,

the

merits

of

which

are

discussed

more

thoroughly

below.

Regarding his fraud claims, Appellant does not explain exactly
what
case.

the

alleged
He

merely

documents

say

references

or

how

documents

they
that

would
he

affect
claims

his
show

statute and recites a portion of the relevant statute, and it fails to state
a prima facie case.
See Helman v. Udren Law Offices, P.C, 85 F. Supp. 3d
1319, 1323 (S.D. Fla. 2014). Appellant appears to base the § 1983 claim on a
law firm's involvement in the non-judicial foreclosure, which would fail to
meet the state-action requirement.
See Tonea v. Bank of Am., N.A., 6 F.

Supp. 3d 1331, 1336-37 (N.D. Ga. 2014).
And Appellant's attempt at a claim
under the Georgia statute fails because it merely states that the law firm
violated multiple code sections, but does not provide any factual support.

misconduct.3

For example, his brief states: "[Appellant] has a

complete volume
the

law

firm]

(Appellant's
documents

of

nearly 100-pages

rendering

Br.

say,

at

of

fraudulent

19.)

references

documents

Regardless

Appellant's

argument

of

that

specific

and

what
he

forgeries."

any

was

[to

of

these

denied

the

privilege of entering documents fails.
First,

only
shows

the

Appellant's

October

20,

arguments

2014

that Appellant

about

hearing.

did not

the

A

attempt

documents

review

to present

In fact,

he did not speak at that hearing.

reviewed

the

February

24,

2015

of

hearing.

reference

that

hearing

any documents.

The Court has also

During

that

hearing,

Appellant did speak on his own behalf and sought to present two

documents to the Bankruptcy Court.
admission

of

his

first

document,

had already been admitted.

The Bankruptcy Court denied
but

only because

The Bankruptcy Court

the

document

then allowed

Appellant to present the second document—an affidavit that the
Court discusses again below.

any other documents.

Appellant did not seek to present

Appellant did reference

knowledge

about

certain documents that he claimed showed fraud and misconduct by

certain parties,

but

Bankruptcy

Court.

Bankruptcy

Court

3 It
fraudulent

appears

he

never offered to present

Because

denied

a

Appellant

request

that Appellant's

documents

relate

to

his

has

to

not

present

argument may be
challenge

to

shown

that

documents

that
the

them to

these
validity

the

the

that

allegedly
of

the

assignments of the security deed, which is discussed more thoroughly below.
Accordingly, as discussed below, even if these documents had been presented
and admitted, they would be irrelevant to these proceedings.

would

affect

his

case,

to

the

extent

Appellant

Bankruptcy Court erred on these grounds,

the

argues

the

Court AFFIRMS the

Bankruptcy Court.

B.

Appellant's standing arguments

One

of

February 24,

the

arguments

Appellant

raised

2015 hearing was that U.S.

on

his

own

at

the

Bank lacked standing to

foreclose on his property.

Although he does not clearly address

this

argued

issue

on

appeal,

standing because

to U.S.
note.

he

Wells

Fargo—the

below

that

assignor

Bank—held only the security deed,

U.S.

of

the

Bank

lacked

security deed

and not the promissory

Appellant's argument fails because Georgia law "does not

require a party seeking to exercise a power of sale in a deed to
secure

note

debt

to

hold,

evidencing the

in

addition

to

underlying debt."

Bank, 743 S.E.2d 428, 429 (Ga. 2013).
a valid

security deed

sale

accordance

in

lender]

the

is

with

sufficient
the

terms

deed,

You v.

the

promissory

JP Morgan Chase

That is, " [p]ossession of
to
of

exercise
the

deed

the

power

even

if

of

[the

does not hold the note or otherwise have any beneficial

interest in the debt obligation underlying the deed."

Coldwell Banker Mortg.,

(alteration in original)
marks omitted) .

599 F.

App'x

868,

(citation omitted)

872

Crespo v.

(11th Cir. 2014)

(internal quotation

To the extent that Appellant

appeals

on this

ground, the Bankruptcy Court is AFFIRMED.

Appellant also argues that U.S. Bank lacks standing because
of an alleged defect in the assignment of the security deed.

8

He

appears

to

argue

somewhere in

that

the

U.S.

not

foreclose

there is an issue with the validity of an assignment.

To

pointed

to

the

Assignment.4

assignments of

the

because,

deed,

argument

of

could

security

support this

chain

Bank

during the proceedings

above-mentioned

below,

Affidavit

Appellant

of

Erroneous

The Bankruptcy Court determined that the affidavit

simply evidenced that the assignor mistakenly assigned the same
security deed to the same assignee twice and the affidavit cured
that

error.

Appellant

Additionally,

lacked

assignment.

standing

the
to

Bankruptcy

challenge

Court

the

ruled

validity

that

of

The Court agrees with the Bankruptcy Court.

an

First,

Appellant has not disputed the Bankruptcy Court's interpretation
of the affidavit.

Second,

Appellant lacks standing to challenge

the validity of the assignment because Appellant was not a party

to

that

extent

contract.

that

the

assignment,
therefore,
McGriff,

appears

lack

Crespo,

[homeowners]

they

413

to

See

are

third

standing

S.E.2d

538,

assert

that

to
539

he

599

F.

App'x

challenge

parties

to

challenge
(Ga.

has

Ct.

the

the

at

App.

(citing

the

assignment

4 Although

during

of

the

he

the

to

and,

Beus

v.

challenge

the

But that

he has not alleged that he was a party to

security

deed.

Because

the record is clear that Appellant

the hearing,

of

Appellant

assignment because he is a party to the security deed.
argument falls short;

the

contract

1991)).

right

("To

validity

that

it.")

873

has not produced

it

Bankruptcy Court's interpretation of the document.

on

Appellant

has

produced this document

appeal

or

disputed

the

failed to present any evidence that shows that U.S. Bank did not

hold the security deed and because Appellant lacks standing to
challenge

the

validity

of

any

transfer

of

the

deed,

the

Bankruptcy Court is AFFIRMED on this ground.
Finally,
asserts

claims

that

as

part

Wells

prevents

of

Fargo

U.S

his

standing

violated

Bank

from

the

2012-2013

security

home.

(case

deed

Appellant

at

no.

that

discuss

Fargo was
Exs.

Appellant

Citing

actions

Appellant's

Appellant

which

his

Wells

attempted

Fargo,

to

which

foreclose

letters and documents

defaulting

several

are

void

arguments,

held

on

on

his

from Wells

loan

and

cases,

Appellant

Cir. 1997)

and prevent

however,

the

(See Doc.

present

are without

Wells

that

Union

(In

re

Spares),

107

foreclosure.

merit.

See

F.3d

that

The

cases

969,

the

Spares v.
975

(1st

(finding that a court violated an automatic stay when

Smith),

the

6,

Wells

it issued a foreclosure judgment); Smith v. First Am. Bank,

(In re

the

Fargo

that

argues

faced with actions they could void.

Credit

he

property.

cites are distinguishable from this case because

courts were
Brockton

on

referring his mortgage to foreclosure.

A-E.)

Fargo's

stay,

while under an automatic stay

12-10695),
time,

Appellant

supports this purported violation of the 2012-

2013 stay by pointing to

that

previous

foreclosing

Appellant essentially claims that,
during

a

argument,

sale

876
of

F.2d
a

524,

526-27

repossessed

car

(6th Cir.
was

in

1989)

N.A.

(finding

violation

of

an

automatic stay and, therefore, void); In re Prine, 222 B.R. 610,

10

612-13

(Bankr.

N.D.

Iowa 1997)

(finding a lien void because it

was filed in violation of an automatic stay) ; In re Moler,
B.R.

561,

562-63

(Bankr.

S.D.

111.

1993)

(finding

lien void because it violated an automatic stay).

a

152

judgment

In this case,

however, Appellant has pointed to no action that may be declared
void.

That is, he has only pointed to evidence that Wells Fargo

contacted

him

regarding

bankruptcy protection.

his

default

There is no

while

In fact,

Bank

the

foreclosed

on

was

under

evidence demonstrating that

Wells Fargo actually foreclosed.
subsequently

he

considering that U.S.

same

home,

the

opposite

appears true.

Appellant's brief goes on to discuss the emotional distress

and

hardship

Fargo's

that

he

actions.

Appellant

properly

has

be

and

These
failed

his

claims,

to

redressed

family

faced

however,

demonstrate

by

this

sound

how

Court,

because

in

these

especially

of

Wells

tort,

and

claims

can

since

the

alleged violation involves different bankruptcy proceedings and

Wells

Fargo

is

not

a

party

to

the

current

proceedings.

Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court is AFFIRMED on these grounds.
C.

Securitization

Appellant
mortgage

not

argued

below

that

the

securitization

somehow prevented the foreclosure.

clearly

nonetheless

raise
briefly

this
address

issue

on

appeal,

that argument.

of

his

Although he does

the

Court

Appellant

has

will
not

produced any authority—and the Court is not aware of any—to

11

support

issue

his

Other

similarly

have

argument.

dismissed

somehow prevents
See

Montoya

01869-RWS,

v.

courts

2012

WL

Banking

826993,

have

idea

the

foreclosure or
Branch

that

that

relieves
&

at

Trust

*6

an

this

securitization

obligation to pay.

Co.,

(N.D.

addressed

Case

Ga.

No.

March

1:11-CV-

9,

2012)

("While it may well be that Plaintiff's mortgage was pooled with
other

not

loans

have

into

a

securitization

on

any effect

trust

rights

Plaintiff's

respect to the mortgage loan,

Plaintiff

from having

to

.

. that

fact

would

and obligations

with

and it certainly would not absolve

make

loan

payments

somehow

Accordingly,

the Bankruptcy Court is AFFIRMED on this ground.

by

not

filed

on

Appellant also claims that the Bankruptcy Court

granting
January

his
6,

attorney's
2015

February 24, 2015 hearing.

Bankruptcy Court

granted

(see

on

the

motion

Bankr.

Doc.

that motion

earlier,

case.

At

the Bankruptcy Court explained that
motion

hearing because
Bankruptcy

until

to

withdraw—which
75)—until

He essentially argues that,

have been able to better argue his

hearing,

omitted)).

Appellant's counsel's motion to withdraw

On appeal,

was

(citation

shield

property

erred

foreclosure."

or

Plaintiff's

D.

from

.

after

Appellant's

had the

Appellant

would

the February 24th

it waited to rule

counsel

argued

at

it thought it served his best interest.

Court

also,

as

mentioned,

the

gave

the

The

Appellant

opportunity to make the arguments he brought on his own behalf.

12

an

Generally,

their cases.

judges

See,

are

e.g.,

given

broad

Chudasama v.

F.3d 1353, 1366-67 (11th Cir. 1997)

discretion

to

Mazda Motor

manage

Corp.,

123

("We recognize that district

courts enjoy broad discretion in deciding how best to manage the
cases

before

them.").

And

a

litigant

must

show

mismanagement by a judge results in some prejudice.
1367

that

See id. at

("When a litigant's rights are materially prejudiced by the

district

court's

mismanagement

of

a

case,

we

must

redress

the

abuse of discretion.").

In

how
been

he

this

assertion of

would

have

granted

argued

Appellant

argued

earlier.

against

was

error,

U.S.

his

He

time

included his claims that U.S.

that Appellant

was

given

the Bankruptcy Court's

case

simply

Bank's

afforded

Appellant

does

not demonstrate

differently
asserts

had

that

he

the

would

standing.

But

at

to

his

arguments,

present

the

Bank lacked standing.

adequate

motion
have

hearing,

which

Considering

opportunity to be

heard and

justification for delaying its ruling on

the motion, Appellant has not persuaded the Court that there was

any error on this issue.

Accordingly,

the Bankruptcy Court is

AFFIRMED on this ground.

E.

The Bankruptcy Court's compliance order and
foreclosure validation

Appellant

also challenges the Bankruptcy

Court's

25, 2015 Order validating the foreclosure sale.

2014

Order

required

that

Appellant

13

remit

February

The November 5,

$3,900.00

to

his

attorney's trust account and make monthly payments of $1,300.00
every month while the motion to validate the foreclosure and the

motion

to

provided:
Bank's

extend
"If

letter

Debtor

motion

Appellant's

the

will

stay
fails
be

attorney

explaining

were
to

pending.

timely remit

granted."

moved

his

to

withdraw,

withdrawal

and

At the

to

timely make

that

he

hearing,

expressly
U.S.

Doc.

sent

he

57.)

Appellant

reminding

him

(See Bankr.

When

a

that

his

75,

Ex.

Doc.

no one disputed that Appellant had failed

the payments,

did.

Order

said payments,

(Bankr.

monthly payment had already come due.

A.)

The

Instead,

and Appellant

he

argues

that

does

he

not

was

now assert

unsure

about

whether to continue payments to his attorney after his attorney

moved to withdraw.5
November 5,

timely

2014

tender

Order makes

the

required

account,

the

And

Bankruptcy

the

That argument

Bankruptcy

clear that if Appellant

payments

Court

Court

when

viewed

would

entered

modifying that requirement.
unpersuasive

is not persuasive.

to

his

no

failed to

attorney's

validate

other

the

The

trust

foreclosure.

order

or

ruling

Appellant's argument is especially
in

light

of

his

attorney's

letter,

which reminded Appellant to make his payments.6

5 The Court notes that, in his brief, Appellant references a November
27, 2014 letter to the Bankruptcy Court about where to send the money.
But a
review of the docket shows only one letter from Appellant to the Bankruptcy
Court around that date, and that letter does not ask for direction on those
payments.
(See Bankr. Docs. 68, 69.)
6 The

Court

also

notes

that,

although

the

Bankruptcy

Court

does

not

appear to have addressed this issue, the letter from Appellant's attorney is
dated December 19,

2014 and indicates that Appellant's payment "was due on
December 1st, 2014."
(Doc. 75.)
Thus, the letter indicates that Appellant
14

Moreover,

even

Bankruptcy Court

if

the

erred by

Appellant's

late

alternative

reason.

Court

were

persuaded

the

foreclosure

validating

payments,

the

Although

Bankruptcy

not

expressly

ruled that Appellant had lost his

home before he
was

not

filed for bankruptcy.

protected

by

the

stay.

had

an

in

mentioned

the

the Bankruptcy

property rights

Accordingly,

"[U]nder

the

based on

Court

Order validating the foreclosure, at the hearing,
Court

that

in the

the property

Georgia

law

debtor's

equity of redemption terminates upon sale to the highest bidder
on

the

B.R.

party

date

847,

the

849

files

foreclosure

(Bankr.

S.D.

bankruptcy,

bankruptcy estate.

See

sale

Ga.

is

held."

1989).

therefore,

id.

In

re

Property

will

("Therefore,

not

the

Sanders,

sold before

be

part

Debtors'

redemption under state law expired on October 4,

108

of

a

the

right to

1988,

leaving

the Debtors with no interest in the property on October 5, 1988,

the

date

they

filed

their

Chapter

13

petition.").

Here,

Appellant did not file for bankruptcy protection until after the
foreclosure

sale

had

been

completed.

Accordingly,

he

had

no

rights in the property.

Because

the

Court

is

not

persuaded

that

the

Bankruptcy

Court erred by validating the foreclosure based on Appellant's

late payments,

and because the Bankruptcy Court's

alternative

reasoning is equally as sound, the Bankruptcy Court is AFFIRMED
on this ground.

was past due on payment before his attorney informed Appellant that he was
withdrawing, which counters his confusion argument.
15

IV.

Conclusion

Because Appellant has not presented any reversible error by
the Bankruptcy Court, its rulings are AFFIRMED.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta,
December,

Georgia this

/$_*_ daY of

2015.

HONDRAI^SEKTT RANCAL HALL

UNITEDjBTATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN

16

DISTRICT

OF

GEORGIA