Case Name: IN RE: Elizabeth COLE, Debtor, Elizabeth Cole; Vincent Lineberger, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James B. Nutter & Company; Substitute Trustee Services, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, v. Warren L. Tadlock, Standing Chapter 13 Trustee, Trustee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-27
Citations: 707 F. App'x 173
Docket Number: No. 17-1728
Parties: IN RE: Elizabeth COLE, Debtor, Elizabeth Cole; Vincent Lineberger, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James B. Nutter & Company; Substitute Trustee Services, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, v. Warren L. Tadlock, Standing Chapter 13 Trustee, Trustee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge,
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 579
Pages: 173–173

Head Matter:
IN RE: Elizabeth COLE, Debtor, Elizabeth Cole; Vincent Lineberger, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James B. Nutter & Company; Substitute Trustee Services, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, v. Warren L. Tadlock, Standing Chapter 13 Trustee, Trustee.
No. 17-1728
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 21, 2017
Decided: December 27, 2017
Elizabeth Cole, Vincent Lineberger, Appellants Pro Se. Lacey Moore Duskin, HUTCHENS, SENTER, KELLAM & PETTIT, P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge,

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit;
PER CURIAM:
Elizabeth Cole and Vincent Lineberger appeal from the district court's orders dismissing their appeal from the bankruptcy court for failure to timely pay the filing fee as directed by the court and denying their motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Cole v. James B. Nutter & Co., No. 3:17-cv-00078-GCM, 2017 WL 6614635, 2017 WL 6614634 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 14, 2017; May 15, 2017); see In re SPR Corp., 45 F.3d 70, 74-75 (4th Cir. 1995) (explaining factors court should consider before dismissal). 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