GLD-242 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 13-1265
___________
IN RE: CAROLE L. TAYLOR,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 2:12-cv-01739)
District Judge: Honorable Nora B. Fischer
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to
Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
May 16, 2013
Before: FUENTES, FISHER and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 24, 2013)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Carole Taylor, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s January 17,
2013 order dismissing her bankruptcy appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons that
follow, we will summarily affirm.
I.
Since 2010, Taylor has been embroiled in various proceedings in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In July 2012, Ronda
Winnecour, the Chapter 13 Trustee who has been involved in those proceedings, moved
for an injunction precluding Taylor and her “Insiders” – Taylor’s two daughters and
TOLATR Highland Park Preparatory Academy/EPIC, Inc. – from filing any further
documents without the Bankruptcy Court’s consent. The Bankruptcy Court treated that
motion as a new adversary proceeding and assigned it case number 12-02299. On
October 1, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court denied the motion for an injunction and directed
the Bankruptcy Court Clerk to close that adversary proceeding. In that same decision, the
Bankruptcy Court ordered that if Taylor or any of her Insiders “files a pleading or other
document in this Court, the Clerk shall not schedule a response or hearing pending
further order of this Court after review of the matter(s) in Chambers.”
The deadline for appealing from the Bankruptcy Court’s October 1, 2012 decision
was October 15, 2012. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a). Taylor,
however, did not file her notice of appeal until October 26, 2012. Thereafter, Winnecour
moved the District Court to dismiss the appeal, arguing, inter alia, that the appeal was
untimely. On January 17, 2013, the District Court granted that motion and dismissed the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction, agreeing with Winnecour that the appeal was untimely.
Taylor now seeks review of the District Court’s judgment.
2
II.
We have jurisdiction over Taylor’s appeal from the District Court’s judgment
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We exercise de novo review over the District
Court’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Taylor’s bankruptcy appeal.
See In re Caterbone, 640 F.3d 108, 111 (3d Cir. 2011).
For substantially the reasons provided by the District Court, we agree that Taylor’s
bankruptcy appeal was untimely and that, as a result, the District Court lacked
jurisdiction to consider it. See id. at 111-12 (citing, inter alia, 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2) and
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209 (2007)). That jurisdictional defect bars not only the
District Court, but also us, from reviewing the merits of Taylor’s bankruptcy appeal. See
Caterbone, 640 F.3d at 113. Because her appeal from the District Court’s judgment does
not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm that judgment. See 3d Cir.
I.O.P. 10.6. Taylor’s request for an “Expedited Emergency Supercedeas [sic] automatic
stay pending appeal” is denied. To the extent one of her daughters, Colette Taylor,
requests leave to intervene in this appeal, that request is denied as well.
3
Carole Taylor v.
Combined Opinion