Full text
Kevin Huennekens v. Karl Malloy
USCA4 Appeal: 25-1695 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1695
KEVIN R. HUENNEKENS,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KARL LINARD MALLOY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Chief District Judge. (3:24-cv-00779-MHL)
Submitted: December 23, 2025 Decided: December 30, 2025
Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Karl Linard Malloy, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1695 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Karl Linard Malloy appeals the district court’s order dismissing the bankruptcy
judge as an appellee and dismissing Malloy’s appeals from the bankruptcy court’s orders
quashing subpoenas and imposing sanctions. The district court dismissed the appeals
because, upon dismissal of the bankruptcy judge, there remained no other appellee.
Rule 8003(a) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure requires that a notice of
appeal from a bankruptcy court order substantially comply with official Form 417A, and
Form 417A includes a section for listing the appellees. However, a failure of complete
compliance with this rule is not jurisdictional. See Fadayiro v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co.,
371 F.3d 920, 922-23 (7th Cir. 2004); Smith v. Porter, 416 B.R. 264, 268 (E.D. Va. 2009)
(holding that failure to identify parties in notice of appeal did not justify dismissal where
there was no confusion as to the parties to the appeal or the order from which the appeal
was taken). Because Malloy’s notice of appeal substantially complied with Form 417A
and his notice of appeal clearly stated that he intended to appeal from four orders quashing
subpoenas and imposing sanctions, we conclude that dismissal of the appeal was not
warranted upon the dismissal of the named appellee.
We therefore vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings,
expressing no opinion as to the ultimate disposition of Malloy’s appeal from the bankruptcy
court’s orders. 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.