Filed: Dec. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1431 NADER MODANLO, Claimant - Appellant, v. CHERYL E. ROSE, Trustee - Appellee, and FINAL ANALYSIS, INCORPORATED, Debtor. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:17-cv-02544-PWG) Submitted: December 17, 2019 Decided: December 19, 2019 Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nader Modanlo, A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1431 NADER MODANLO, Claimant - Appellant, v. CHERYL E. ROSE, Trustee - Appellee, and FINAL ANALYSIS, INCORPORATED, Debtor. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:17-cv-02544-PWG) Submitted: December 17, 2019 Decided: December 19, 2019 Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nader Modanlo, Ap..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1431
NADER MODANLO,
Claimant - Appellant,
v.
CHERYL E. ROSE,
Trustee - Appellee,
and
FINAL ANALYSIS, INCORPORATED,
Debtor.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:17-cv-02544-PWG)
Submitted: December 17, 2019 Decided: December 19, 2019
Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nader Modanlo, Appellant Pro Se. James Martin Hoffman, OFFIT KURMAN, PA,
Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nader Modanlo appeals from the district court’s orders: (1) dismissing his appeal
from the bankruptcy court’s order approving a final application for attorney’s fees, and (2)
denying Modanlo’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. We have
reviewed the record included on appeal and the parties’ briefs, and we find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Modanlo v. Rose,
No. 8:17-cv-02544-PWG (D. Md. July 2, 2018; Mar. 20, 2019). 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
2