United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
J. HAZEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
February 14, 2019, Appellant Rosemary McBride Hainey appealed
an order from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Maryland "declaring a scheduled time-barred
claim a nondischargeable student loan debt without the
benefit of an adversarial proceeding and denying an order of
contempt and damages for violations of bankruptcy
injunctions." ECF No. I. The appeal was taken as to
Appellee Access Group, Inc. ("Access Group") and
Appellee Freeman Rauch, LLC. On March 29, 2019, Appellant and
Access Group filed a Stipulation of Dismissal of Appeal
stating that they had resolved their underlying disputes and
memorialized their settlement in writing and that Appellant
withdrew her appeal with prejudice. ECF No. 12. On May 7,
2019, Appellant filed a Motion to Strike Dismissal of Appeal
asking the Court to reinstate her appeal because Appellee had
breached the parties' settlement agreement. ECF No. 13.
Access Group opposes such relief. ECF No.
14. No hearing is necessary to resolve Appellant's
Motion. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the
following reasons, Appellant's Motion to Strike Dismissal
of Appeal is denied.
Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8023 provides that "[t]he
clerk of the district court or [Bankruptcy Appellate Panel]
must dismiss an appeal if the parties file a signed dismissal
agreement specifying how costs are to be paid and pay any
fees that are due. An appeal may be dismissed on the
appellant's motion on terms agreed to by the parties or
fixed by the district court or [Bankruptcy Appellate
Panel]." Once the parties file a notice of voluntary
dismissal with prejudice, the appeal must be dismissed, and
the district court cannot allow withdrawal of that dismissal.
See Tidwell v. JPMC Specialty Mortg. LLC, 727
Fed.Appx. 406, 407 (9th Cir. 2018) (affirming district
court's denial of appellant's motion to withdraw
notice of voluntary dismissal of bankruptcy appeal with
prejudice because "upon filing of the notice of
voluntary dismissal, the district court was required to
dismiss the appeal"); cf. Jones, Blechman, Woltz
& Kelly, PC v. Babakaeva, 375 Fed.Appx. 349, 350
(4th Cir. 2010) (stating that the district court lacked
jurisdiction to consider a motion to strike a Fed.R.Civ.P.
41(a)(1)(A) notice of voluntary dismissal because the notice
of voluntary dismissal terminated the action as of the date
the notice was filed, divested the court of jurisdiction, and
made any subsequent district court order void); Am.
Soccer Co. v. Score First Enters., 187 F.3d 1108,
1109-12 (9th Cir. 1999) (concluding that a voluntary
dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1) takes effect without
court order and cannot be vacated by the district court).
the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal of Appeal signed
by both Appellant and Access Group specifying how costs were
to be paid and indicating that Appellant voluntarily
dismissed her appeal with prejudice. The appeal therefore
terminated, effective the date of the Stipulation, and the
Court cannot reinstate that appeal. Moreover, the Stipulation
contained no conditions allowing Appellant to reinstate the
appeal in the event of noncompliance with a settlement
agreement, and, in fact, Appellant's withdrawal of her
appeal "with prejudice" suggests that the only
condition of dismissal was that the appeal not be reinstated.
Appellant has provided no authority that suggests a court
sitting in an appellate posture can reopen an appeal that has
been dismissed with prejudice, and the Court is not aware of
any such authority. Thus, Appellant's Motion to Strike
Dismissal of Appeal is denied.
reasons stated, it is ordered by the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland that:
Appellant Rosemary McBride Hainey's Motion to Strike
Dismissal of Appeal is DENIED; and
Clerk SHALL MAIL a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to Appellant.
 The Notice of Appeal states that
Appellant challenges a February 6, 2019 order. ECF No. 1. The
docket attached to the Notice of Appeal indicates that the
only event that occurred on February 6, 2019 was a hearing
addressing thirteen different filings, including a Motion for
Sanctions for Violation of the Automatic Stay and a Motion
for Sanctions for Violation of the Discharge Injunction, both
filed by Appellant. ECF No. 1-2 at 2-3. The only order
attached to the Notice of Appeal is the Order Denying Motion
for an Order of Contempt and Sanctions for Violation of the
Automatic Stay. ECF No. 1-1.
 The Court expresses no opinion as to
whether Appellant and Access Group have an enforceable
settlement agreement, and therefore this Memorandum Opinion
and Order has no bearing on Appellant's ability to