nor listed as a creditor. Similarly, in Virginia v. Collins (In re Collins), 173 F.3d 924, 929 (4th Cir.1999), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 785, 145 L.Ed.2d 663 (2000), the court found that there was no Eleventh Amendment suit where the debtors asked for their bankruptcy case to be reopened — but did not directly sue the state — for a determination that certain debts owed the state were discharged pursuant to a previous discharge order. The Walker court noted, however, that “commencement of certain adversary proceedings directly against a state that has not filed a proof of claim in a bankruptcy case would” come within the scope of the Eleventh Amendment. Walker, 142 F.3d at 823; see also Maryland v. Antonelli Creditors’ Liquidating Trust, 123 F.3d 777, 786-87 (4th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). The Mitchells’ contention that Count 1 did
holding that a notice of appeal filed in an adversary proceeding could not appeal the main proceeding holding that a workers compensation proceeding is a legal proceeding holding that while an original bankruptcy proceeding where the state is not named as a defendant is not a suit an adversary proceeding directly against the state would be holding that where an action is brought by the debtors at the initial proceeding the appeal of that action is not a continuing proceeding against the debtors holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state