Harrell v. Boudreaux

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL/CASE. This case is closed. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 1/14/15. (cmr)

NR
IGINAL

F]L: D

L r: , i r l : j l i i l l i C S U R I
COI'RT FOR T H E r , , l 3 l " i f l l V
rN THE IJNTTED STATES DTSTRTCT
SOUTHERNDISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DT'BLIN DIVISION

20i5 lt+ Pl{2,^59
JAt{
.L EEi{

SARALAND, LL],P,

IN RE:

case

No.

J14-14U

(Bankr. Case No. 12-30113)

Debtor.

ORDER

nn

entered
qal

I

ar

n-anaar{i

na

IJlvvvls4'rY

Bankr.

n

ra:l

norr:i

1

)n1

ar^'rlrt-

hrnlzrrrnrrrr

ni

nFht.\r

nn

Mr

tho

f if
1

/Rankr

l-ha

forma pauperis
r
zuI4l

Mr

N.

1

Adams v.
/"Tln.lerhe

rcr-nmmond

Hal.l.c'1

,ef

^r^r,^-)-.^

tvovemoer

\r/

lafforr

\L!!ueLt!s

\

Mr

2072). )

arl

i-hi

c

rha

nanor:l

I

On

Arda

r

l-n

rrndorl.rinn

n:rl-

H^ rral

i n nY

donial

Mr.

oI

verrLs!

for
i rrr

) 1
znu L l /; 1 .

?J
z( ,

.: t t-

113 E-3d 1339,

UnLred States,

/l\

?

:

29,

1-l

/ .ezA_A
\ : ! Y

har

di

d

nF

rha

nnF

n:rr

detai Led, fourteen-page

j-hc
l-l-A rmFr lLrnx rrrlA-,
defF
a n-isoner
clp'ivers

authoriLies

i <

TT T D

in

ro

r-h.anl-ar

lrrr{

;nno;l

t.alzan

l

rri na

Mar.
I

motion

Report

HarreII's

in

of Appeaf is dated and signed on November 21.

posLf[drKeo

AvA O !? / n \
- w-\ /

qarr

f arrrr

(Bankr. Doc. No. 752. )

request.

prison

rrnrlar'l

Ga.

enna:l

I{rrral

11 Trustee's

dol-.rnr

l^l

R.anlzrrrnl- nrr

fee; on November 18, 2014, the Bankruptcy

^h

The Notice
allo

Qt:roc

l-ha

(S.D.

ef ar

i-h

D.-].

Da^nnnah.r=Fi

Tlrri r a.l

in

issued a well-reasoned,

Court

is

l-ho

rn

Li

the appel-faLe filing

:nri

A

12-30113

4

,-.aqa

,n1

nrr'\n!>rt\7

Case No.

Daaamhpr

?

o r a n t i n . t l -I - e C h a n f e -

Order

.^arr-ri

thia

'l

Nlnrzomhcr

|).ze

.

r

It

1-h,a-afnra

Lv!11.

-

1341 (11'r Cir.

.1Ara nf f i li.o
a nel-i f ion o-

mailing.";;
^^-

i
_e-

see also

wifh
orher

r .,i . . a l,r, _ 1 ,
- m.

f999)

.n rrt
rhe
f '' in,^r l--o

Fed. R. Bankr.

P.

rrhi q
E i rcr

..rr-rl'nf

an

mrrcf

annceI

opinion

nf

two

rho

rl^6

renrriqij-e

fiIinn

j-hiq

fcc

f eaSonS.

Rpnl^'rh

^n,'l

forma pauperis

in

and denied

(Bankr. Doc. No. 791.)

Lo Mr. Harrell.

n.\rmAht

for

^ -1.\n1-Fd
ouv P uEu

l.tanamlrar

Recommendation as its
status

dr qml ssed

hc

Thus, withouL
^r)nFAl

mrrqT-

Lre

di smissed.
federaf

Se c o n d ,

As

irrri<rlinfinn

irrri

cdi

..t i nn

Ju!rJvr!Lrv

t"nrrrt-'

i 1/ \
!

nrzcr

courts

a

district

f h reF
-irrrinmonre

f ihrl

.rf

q

:nr'l

f ram

nv!

ra..t',ni ^^

!svuur

/?r

r-ha

Y

r'l

l

l-ima

narinde

nFhaz

i nl- arl.\.rll-

in

2B U.S.C.

rrnriar

.1rr/

11

nr.larc

tha

.lonrace

in 28 U. S.C. S 158 (a) (1) ; (2 ) interlocuto.ry

only

has

R:nkrrrnr.\,f
-ae

doenriherl

appeals .increasing
q

Il

limited

Court

this

:nna:l

nrdarc

of

courts

court,

f \/ncq

!rrrs+

\

are

wirh

r-

<

l a:\za

T1?1 1^\:
. - \f

:n.l

-^,rrl

\ J /

described
8001(b)
nrr'.lar

on the

r

hrnlzrrrnl-/-\/

/-^rrrf

and leaves

merits

.

1997) (citation

Cir.
from

which

judgment,
h:e

fnr

m
r L :. rqr y

h^r'l

orrzo

\\l16^f

either

'l

l-n

rnno:l

rh6

grant

for

R.

Bankr.

Fava

i e

deny

f i le

naf

^€
v!

srrr-h

Fi I a,.l

rPI -l
a n h /6E o f

it . "

the

l-ha

A final

litidrj-

court

to

i^h

do but

The Report and Recommendation

appeafs

t.

an.]e

P.

__:i_+_!_Y_!

is

an interlocutory

n.rl- i.o

or

t-h.t-

nothing

omitted) .

rather

c^,1^hr

\\nno

ic

+-tL----+-:---

Harrell

Mr.

but

Fed.

and

See qeneral.Lv 28 U.S.C. S 158 (a) .

& 8003.

in

S 158 (at (3)

not

hnworror

Fed.

fina.L

order;

annee

oJ

a

l_,

or

and Mr. Harrell
EVen

I ho

if

a

rli cr- ri

a motlon
R.

order

Bankr.

for
P.

-r-

mOtiOn
^^,,rt-

leave

and

8004(d).

Accordingly,

Court will

this

nn tl^e

chnrrl d fre rr.:n-ad

strenoth

of

the

whether

determining

interlocutory

from a bankruptcy

appeals

discrict

parry

the

musc

.^.l
^r\
g - ^r u " u

i -1

of
/li

fnnarace'

\avl-anl-

courts

has not
appeal.

^oc

a firm

i nn

n:ca<

final

discretion

due

l-^

rronoral

judgment rufe,")

consideration,

for

standard

Accordingly,

motions

i nf

lrr

the

IT

is

IS

a

is

i m ^ ln ^u y
uL, J

a
rnrl

woufd materially

litigation,

District
appea-Is

519 U.S. 61, 14 \1,996)
would hardly
ar'l

/1.-rrr-,,-\r\'

ral- :ininn

f.,rr

rarri

rha

comport
au

f ar

farlar:

l

,
Court

exercises

lts

leave to appeal because he

a discretiona.ry
ORDERED that

directed

there

bankruptcy

requests

and den.ies Mr. Harrell
met the

issue

v. Lewis,

raear\ra

r,rhi la

DISMISSED. The Cferk
pendinq

Inc.

S 1292(b)

to

inn:1,

Upon

. \ynri, ' r v ,i , , n
n .
v

the

frnm

presents

order
which

of the

termination

Caterpillar

("Routj-ne resort
u,i th

of

the

over

^F
vL

anna:le

Under S L292(bJ, an

aI Lo',v interfocutory

should

sparjngly.

f f a r 6 n . . ar u s

resolution

advance the ultimate

. - 'rr\ l

(1)

(2)

law

che dist.rict

in 28 U.S.C. S L292 lb),

of appeafs,

show that

€^r

immediate

courts

Notice

the

discretionary

court,

i niarl.\.rf

Lo Lhe courts

question

controllj-ng

(3)

qnrarinn.rrrr

urJsr!r+vrrq!1,

courrs

appealing

-.,1-.^F-h{-

di

rrJ

v e!

9v

and

granl

to

court uses the same standard set forth
whinh

r:ecord

on December 1., 20L4.

of Appeal fifed
In

whether leave to appeal

consider

interlocutory
the

appeal

t o C L O S Et h e c a s e .

are DENIED AS MOOT.

be

and al1

ORDER ENTERED a r
January,

Augusta,

Georgia,

rhi s

2015.

UN]TED STA

S DISTRICT JU