Haines v. Sigmon

Filing 5

ORDER granting 3 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 4/30/2014. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(blf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:13-CV-640
LANCELOT B. HAINES,
Appellant,

)
)
)
vs.
)
)
WAYNE SIGMON, Trustee,
)
Appellee.
)
______________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s (the “Bank”)
Motion to Dismiss the Appeal (Doc. No. 3) and Appellant Lancelot Haines’ Response (Doc. No.
4). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
Lancelot B. Haines filed for relief under Chapter 7 of Bankruptcy Code, pro se, on
September 20, 2013. On November 5, 2013, Wayne Sigmon, Chapter 7 Trustee, filed a motion to
dismiss the Debtor’s Chapter 7 case. On November 15, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court entered an
order dismissing Haines’ case. On November 22, 2013, Haines filed a Notice of Appeal (Doc.
No. 1). On February 3, 2014, the Clerk’s Office for the Bankruptcy Court issued a notice to
Haines requiring him to pay $298.00 in connection with the filing of his appeal. Haines has
failed to pay the filing fee, and has otherwise failed to prosecute his appeal in any way.
II. DISCUSSION
The Bank submits to the Court that it is a secured creditor in Haines’ bankruptcy case and
is thus a party in interest to this appeal. The Bank notes that, besides paying the applicable filing
fee, Haines was required to file the designation of items to be included in the record on appeal
and a statement of the issues to be presented to the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8006.

Because he has failed to do any of these things, the Bank argues that his appeal must be
dismissed. The Court agrees. Haines has failed to follow the requisite procedure for prosecuting
an appeal from a bankruptcy ruling as required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8006, and indeed has failed
to prosecute his appeal in any way whatsoever. As a result, his appeal must be dismissed.
The Court has reviewed Haines’ fifty-seven page Response (Doc. No. 4) and cannot
make sense of it. It appears to be little more than copies of previous filings in the bankruptcy
case and strange compilations of legal jargon. The Court cannot discern what argument, if any,
Haines attempts to make in response.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 3) is hereby
GRANTED and this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.