Mithun Banerjee v. PNC Bank, National Association ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2169 Doc: 47 Filed: 08/28/2024 Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-2169
MITHUN BANERJEE,
Debtor - Appellant,
and
MALANCHA BANERJEE,
Debtor,
v.
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Creditor - Appellee,
TIMOTHY P. BRANIGAN,
Trustee.
No. 23-2171
MITHUN BANERJEE,
Debtor - Appellant,
and
MALANCHA BANERJEE,
Debtor,
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2169 Doc: 47 Filed: 08/28/2024 Pg: 2 of 5
v.
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Creditor - Appellee,
TIMOTHY P. BRANIGAN,
Trustee.
No. 23-2175
MITHUN BANERJEE,
Debtor - Appellant,
and
MALANCHA BANERJEE,
Debtor,
v.
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Creditor - Appellee,
TIMOTHY P. BRANIGAN,
Trustee.
No. 23-2178
MITHUN BANERJEE,
Debtor - Appellant,
and
2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2169 Doc: 47 Filed: 08/28/2024 Pg: 3 of 5
MALANCHA BANERJEE,
Debtor,
v.
TIMOTHY P. BRANIGAN,
Trustee - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:23-cv-01697-PJM; 8:23-cv-01730-PJM; 8:23-
cv-01794-PJM; 8:23-cv-01932-PJM)
Submitted: July 30, 2024 Decided: August 28, 2024
Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mithun Banerjee, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew G. Summers, BALLARD SPAHR, LLP,
Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellee PNC Bank, National Association.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2169 Doc: 47 Filed: 08/28/2024 Pg: 4 of 5
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated cases, 1 Mithun Banerjee seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing his appeals from
four orders entered by the bankruptcy court in the Chapter 13 case he filed jointly with his
wife. 2 Banerjee sought leave from this court to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. We
denied leave, and Banerjee filed motions for reconsideration, for an extension of time, and
for appointment of counsel. He also filed motions for leave to file an amended motion for
reconsideration, an amended informal opening brief, and a supplemental informal reply
brief. We grant Banerjee’s motions for leave to file the additional pleadings and have
considered the arguments presented. Although we grant Banerjee’s motions and amended
motions for reconsideration and grant him leave to proceed in forma pauperis in these
appeals, we deny his remaining motions and dismiss the appeals.
After Banerjee noted his appeals from the district court’s orders, the bankruptcy
court dismissed the Banerjees’ Chapter 13 case. Due to the dismissal of the underlying
bankruptcy case, this court “is without the power to afford effective relief.” See Central
States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Central Transp., Inc., 841 F.2d 92, 96
(4th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals as moot. We deny Banerjee’s
motions for appointment of counsel, and we deny as moot Banerjee’s motions to expedite
1
We deny the motions to deconsolidate Appeal No. 21-2178 and to identify the
judge or judges who deferred ruling on Banerjee’s applications for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis.
2
Banerjee’s spouse is not a party to these appeals.
4
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2169 Doc: 47 Filed: 08/28/2024 Pg: 5 of 5
and for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration and to file his reply brief.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
5