UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2386
In Re: JILL PARRISH,
Debtor.
------------------------------------
JILL PARRISH,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
WILLIAM P. MILLER,
Party-in-Interest,
ANITA JO TROXLER,
Trustee.
No. 14-2387
In Re: JILL HEDGECOCK PARRISH,
Debtor.
------------------------------------
JILL PARRISH,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM P. MILLER, Bankruptcy Administrator,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
ANITA JO TROXLER,
Trustee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00856-CCE; 1:14-cv-00916-CCE; 14-10681)
Submitted: May 15, 2015 Decided: May 29, 2015
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jill Parrish, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela P. Keenan, KIRSCHBAUM,
NANNEY, KEENAN & GRIFFIN, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina; Robert
Edmunds Price, Jr., UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATOR,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Jill Parrish appeals the district court’s orders dismissing
her appeals from the bankruptcy court’s orders granting a
creditor relief from the automatic stay in her bankruptcy case
and denying her request for a hardship discharge. The
bankruptcy court subsequently dismissed the underlying
bankruptcy case on an unrelated basis and Parrish has not
appealed that dismissal. Because the bankruptcy case has been
dismissed, this court cannot afford Parrish any effective
relief. See In re Stadium Mgt. Corp., 895 F.2d 845, 847 (1st
Cir. 1990) (“Absent a stay, the court must dismiss a pending
appeal as moot because the court has no remedy that it can
fashion even if it would have determined the issues
differently.”). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and dismiss these appeals as moot. 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
3