Ogle v. CHW, LLC

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1851
In Re: GRAND RIDGE CORPORATION, successor to
Enterprize Park Corporation,
Debtor.
HENRY T. OGLE,
Appellant,
versus
CHW, LLC,
Creditor - Appellee,
CHRYSLER FINANCIAL; DAIMLERCHRYSLER SERVICES
NORTH AMERICA L.L.C.; FORD MOTOR CREDIT
COMPANY; AMERICAN EXPRESS CENTURION BANK; CIT
GROUP/Equipment Financing, Incorporated; THE
CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY,
Creditors,
and
UNITED STATES TRUSTEE,
Party in Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (CA-02-160)
Submitted: December 31, 2002 Decided: January 13, 2003
Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry T. Ogle, Appellant Pro Se. David G. Gray, Jr., WESTALL,
GRAY, CONNOLLY & DAVIS, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Henry T. Ogle appeals from the district court’s order
dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order lifting the
automatic stay in the underlying bankruptcy proceeding and allowing
a foreclosure to proceed. Ogle, an attorney, is not a creditor of
the bankruptcy estate as he has never filed a proof of claim and
the time for doing so has expired. Moreover, the bankruptcy court
denied Ogle permission to appear and represent Grand Ridge
Corporation, and sanctioned him for attempting to do so.
Therefore, we find that Ogle lacks standing to pursue this appeal
and, accordingly, grant the Appellee’s motion to dismiss the
appeal. See Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Eason, 736 F.2d 130,
34 (4th Cir. 1984) (challenge to bankruptcy court's disposition
must be made by those with requisite stake in the outcome). We
deny the Appellee’s motion for sanctions and dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3