Harrell v. U.S. Trustee Office of the U.S. Trustee et al

Filing 5

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

rii?GINAL
I

rt-[l

IN THE I'NITED STATES D]STRICT COT'RT FOR THE
SOUTHERNDISTRICT OF' GEORSIA
DUBIIN DIVISION

U . : 1 ; : r r i i ; : :I C C ; { i
i. l

Zi,liJliiilt+

lLl:
50-.liSl.0F
GA

PARADISE FARMS, INC. ,

] N RE:

Case No. 3L4-L42
/R:nlzr

Debtor.

a.<a

12-30111)

Nl^

ORDER

nn na.amhF- 2, ?014. Mr- T,'srcr W_ Harreff
of

appeal

r n.4ar'l

in

rri ra

the

Uni Led

ahihrar

?

12-30111

(S.D.

ca.

nraa

^f

,'laht/1r

i , ,vlra L t
-e
rh

n! f
u

aynu q a r l
u y n r,

f-nm

r-h6

Mr

lhe

nn

Mar.

Harrcr

29,

J

T\^^

reouest

t\T^

??O

The

anneal

to

n.\.-

aPPsat

!r4ll_!ll

f-.'rrrr,

Rankrln'.1/

Harrelf's

ni

2012). )

l\ t r : nrk !r
rurr r

r

Recommendation of November I8t
Mr.

nari-ii

hd

Court
l- ^

in

f h6

rhe

.- -a*h-r - r l
4
n

(See Bankr. Doc. No. 338, Bankr, Case No.

Paradise Farms, Inc.

PluJ

Bankruptcy

States

nrnnoo^i

fi_Led a notice

Mr.

N^

1t
L

rn

Harreff
: lLu

?.
J

rhi s

Tho

I

r-ase-

rhe

nnt

r q

p e y ^ r r r rf
av
r\

r^rol I -rceqn-cd

e

\

is

L

i n^

taken
^nd

20L4, whj-ch recomnends denial- of

proceed in

forma pauperis.

(Bankr.

\

in

fhis

canfi

onF.l

'naf i-Flrrsl-

be

dismissed

for

T h e N o t i c e o f A p p e a - Li s d a t e d a n d s i g n e d o n N o v e m b e r 2 7 ,
2014, and postmarked December 1,, 2014; it is therefore timely.
Adams v. United States,
713 E.3d 1339, 1341 (11rh Cir.
1999)
("Under the rmailbox rufe,'
the daLe of filing
with the court
is

fhe

rlare

a

nri

soner

clelirre-s

a

ncfifion

prison auLhorities
for mailing.");
see afso
8002 (c) (1) (effeccive Dec. 1, 2OI4) .

or

ofhar

fil'nn

to

Fed. R. Bank.r. P.

RFn^rt

e

r
R a r r- o. m.m .e J cd L --L - -] I
- -. -- n r ^ U

Fnd

n:rrnari

,.r+r-.^, +
wILII(.,)UL

on December 9, 20IA,

First,

two reasons.

er- rr-

c

r.\

^ €I
Lr

pdylllcllL

^*'*'^n

tLs. h u
-A

1 r j^ nn K r .
( R a Lr

r u y u r iJ<! i! r! a
!aar -

Court

and

uIJf rlr\J

{ re
it l- a: rr r a l r - _I l .

Mr ,
r

I:his

in

denied

. .
lno\c .

F . -ira
Lh J

the

forma

?4
J 4 1 / , \)

N1o.
L\.\

f oc ,
!co

F i -n
r - irl +n r V

adopted

T nru 's ,
Ih r

a nJnP U q ol a^l

m . u D!L
.t1,^

be dismis sed.
Second, federal
As a disrricr
r'no<

nF.annoale

ar'l

n n r r l - n r r r! y

frnm

r n n /o . u ! J
uyl L a

11 U. S.C.

under
orders

this
ihF

and decrees.

orders,
inl

court,

courts

with

Court only has jurisdj-ccion
R^nlrrrnf

i r r u l rLou: J fi
q
l nn

of

l-58(a) (3) and Fed. R. Bankr.
28 U.S.C. S 158(a).
that

ends the

the courc to
F

?.r

q"

q?

do but

HarreLl
moljon
court
aithar

has not
for

.Ir,"nl-

Accordingly,

rarher

sought ]eave

the notice
^onrr

thjs

nn

aff

l-ha

l- ima

other

described

ir

Court wiff

iudqment. "

l.rf^r'inn

.Leave to appeal is

may "treaL

irrzlnmanrc

interlocutory

in

28

U.S.C,

court

In re

appeals

is "one

is

not

Fed.
consider

L

end

qr

and Mr.

Even if

a

however, Lhe disLrict

of appeal as a motion for
'

111

a finaf

order;

such appeal.

not Iiled,

for

Fulton,

'Thtr Ran.\rf
L\vyv
!

an int.erlocutory
co file

S

See generalfv

nmirted)

Harrell

(2)

h 6 r i ^ . . lv r t r r
. !/e!

on the rne.rits and feaves nolhinq

1qq?l

judgmenc, but

or

fin:l

order in a bankruptcy

Recommendation from which Mr.
order

il\

rA .
r r q. u lvr lrr^ i
y

(3)

as

execute its

111(h air

.

P. 8001(b) & 8003.

A final

litigation

/1r
v-

and

court,

a.\rrrl-

over rhree

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

n,^
, y

S 1121(d) ;

feave

.\r

as described
l c

jurisdicrion.

are cou.rts of limited

R.

Bankr.

whether

P.

Ieave and
8004(d) .

feave to

appeaf

ch.)rrld

he
pe

o! r raen vf e d
Y q r v

annca

r]atarmi

I s

ni

fron1

a

nn

urhar- hor

set

di cnrcl-i

i n'trl

courts

of

appeals.

(j)

ard

comport with

rarrier^r

1.nr

federal

courts

Mr.

a firm

final

Harrell

r . ? l a iI 6

. h rn

Cou-f
oL

i fs

a I reaclv
arlonf i^n

af'r
^-^^y

and alf

pendinq

motions

LO the

musL
of faw

difference
Of

termj-nation

of
the

of the

interlocutory

Inc.

v.

Lewis,

519

Lo reserve

^6h^-:l

incerloculory

I r , , L !a- ir : i! nLi !n 9
r L ! !n

fn
: v :r

lL-rll -s ^

rule.").
its

discretion

appeaf because he has not met
interlocuro.ry

fhF

^^^^r^i

appeal be DISMISSED. The Clerk

Lhe

which governs

reSOIuLiOn

che Court exercises

rmed

USeS

question

affow

l:y'srrs.Lu,+J

judgnent

feave to

nn,rrn

to S 1292(b) requests would

design

the standard for a discreLionary
rL is

immecliate

resorl

----ry

i nr-ar'l

COufLS

ground for

Caterpillar

^--^-

f

Upon due consideraLion,
and denies

Notice

an appea.Ling party

should

Congress'

rpszr-,.nl- inn-tr
L^LLIJ
L rvr
ra

courts

S 1292 (b),

advance the ultimate

U.S. 61, 14 (L996) ("Routine
hardly

the

COUIT

a cont rolljng

fhe

sparingl-y.

rrz

q f rnrr distriCt

anneal

a substantial

District
appeals

28 U.S.C.

i nnr

,'ri StIiCt

iha

presents

is

woufd materially

bankruptcy

and

fecold

earor-

Under S 1292 lb),

rm..)n.r ^.rrr-s-

litigation.

rhc

di

-^rrrF

'f nrrr

^-

(2) over which there

issue

nf

l-.1 ^ r:nf

in

forth

(1) the order

show that

^nininn

l-\r

bankrrrnl-

same standard
nna-rz

cf rFn.ti-h

on December 3, 20L4.

of Appeaf filed
rn

iha

on

is

Rerr.rt
nn r,-

appeal.

and
IT

directed

are DENIED AS MOOT,

IS

In fact,

Recommendatiol
ORDERED chat

tlre

t o C ] , O S Et h e c a s e ,

ORDER ENTERED
y
L T a n ura ,

ctL

flLr9

l.l5 L<1,

ljsw!9rd,

2015.

UNITED STAT

DISTRICT JUDGE