USCA4 Appeal: 24-2271 Doc: 16 Filed: 12/01/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-2271

KRISTIN E. SCHELIN; MARK A. WATSON,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

KARL LINARD MALLOY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:24-cv-00002-MHL)

Submitted: November 25, 2025 Decided: December 1, 2025

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Karl Linnard Malloy, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Lawrence Perkins, ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-2271 Doc: 16 Filed: 12/01/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Karl Linard Malloy appeals the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy

court’s order remanding to the state court a real estate contract dispute that Malloy had

removed to the bankruptcy court to be addressed in the context of his Chapter 13

bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy court determined that mandatory abstention was

appropriate under

(c)(2). The bankruptcy court also modified the

automatic stay to allow the state case to proceed to final judgment but required the parties

to seek relief from the bankruptcy court prior to executing any judgment issued by the state

court. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order. In his appeal from the

district court’s order, Malloy contends that the bankruptcy court erred by modifying the

automatic stay and erred in concluding that abstention was appropriate. We affirm in part

and dismiss in part.

An order modifying the automatic stay is a final appealable order because it resolves

a discrete dispute in the bankruptcy case. Ritzen Grp. Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC,

(2020). “Congress . . . has granted broad discretion to bankruptcy courts to

lift the automatic stay to permit enforcement of rights against property of the estate.”

Claughton v. Mixson,

(4th Cir. 1994). We have reviewed the record and

discern no abuse of discretion by the bankruptcy court in modifying the automatic stay to

allow the state court to adjudicate the real estate contract dispute, which had been

proceeding in the state courts for 18 months prior to Malloy filing his bankruptcy petition.

We therefore affirm the portion of the district court’s order upholding the modification of

the automatic stay.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2271 Doc: 16 Filed: 12/01/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

Malloy also contests the portion of the order remanding the case to the state court.

However, “[a]ny decision to abstain . . . made under [

(c)] . . . is not

reviewable by appeal or otherwise by the court of appeals.”

(d). Because

we lack jurisdiction to review the propriety of the decision to abstain, we dismiss this

portion of the 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 IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART

∗ To the extent that Malloy challenges the bankruptcy court’s order granting the Appellees’ motion for an expedited hearing on the motion to remand, we find no abuse of discretion by the district court.

3