Filed: August 19, 1996 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2685 (CA-95-366, BK-93-11389C-7W-B) Wilbur P. Hollar, et al, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus William Steven Myers, et al, Defendants - Appellees. O R D E R The Court amends its opinion filed April 4, 1996, as follows: On page 2, line 8 of the opinion -- "(M.D.N.C. Sept. 5, 1995)" is corrected to read "(M.D.N.C. Aug. 23, 1995)." For the Court - By Direction /s/ Bert M. Montague Clerk  UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2685 In Re: WILBUR P. HOLLAR; In Re: RUTH CAROL HOLLAR, Debtors. _________________________ WILBUR P. HOLLAR; RUTH CAROL HOLLAR, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus WILLIAM STEVEN MYERS; LINDA WEST MYERS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, District Judge. (CA-95-366, BK-93-11389C-7W-B) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 4, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wilbur P. Hollar, Ruth Carol Hollar, Appellants Pro Se. Leslie Gray Frye, Sr., FRYE & BOOTH, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees. 2 3 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal from the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's order dismissing their adversary action for failure to comply with discovery and alternatively granting Defen- dants' motion for summary judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we deny Appellants' motion for summary reversal and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hollar v. Myers, Nos. CA- 95-366; BK-93-11389C-7W-B (M.D.N.C. Aug. 23, 1995). Additionally, we deny Appellants' motion to strike Appellees' informal brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4