Opinion
24-1580
08-26-2024
In re: 25350 PLEASANT VALLEY LLC. v. 25350 PLEASANT VALLEY LLC, Debtor - Appellee, ELSHAN BAYRAMOV, Appellant, and MAINSTREET BANK, Creditor - Appellee, and JANET M. MEIBURGER, Chapter 7 Trustee, Trustee - Appellee, and U.S. TRUSTEE, Trustee.
Elshan Bayramov, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Scott Schuster, FUNK & BOLTON, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Creditor - Appellee; Janet Marie Meiburger, MEIBURGER LAW FIRM, PC, McLean, Virginia, for Trustee - Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: August 22, 2024
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:24-cv-00816-MSN-WBP)
Elshan Bayramov, Appellant Pro Se.
Eric Scott Schuster, FUNK & BOLTON, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Creditor - Appellee;
Janet Marie Meiburger, MEIBURGER LAW FIRM, PC, McLean, Virginia, for Trustee - Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Elshan Bayramov appeals the district court's order granting 25350 Pleasant Valley LLC's voluntary dismissal of its appeal from the bankruptcy court's order converting its Chapter 11 bankruptcy case to one under Chapter 7. Bayramov contends that the district court erred by dismissing the appeal without addressing his pending motion to intervene. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Black v. Cent. Motor Lines, Inc., 500 F.2d 407, 408 (4th Cir. 1974) ("[W]henever an action is terminated, for whatever reason, there no longer remains an action in which there can be intervention."); see also Moses v. City of Perry, Mich., 90 F.4th 501, 507 (6th Cir. 2024) (affirming dismissal of appeal and stating that dismissal mooted nonparty's motion to intervene). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order, Bayramov v. 25350 Pleasant Valley LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00816-MSN-WBP (E.D. Va. filed June 13, 2024; entered June 14, 2024), and we deny Bayramov's motion to stay the proceedings pending appeal. 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.
AFFIRMED.