Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Landen v. Federal Home Loan, 99-2139 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-2139 Visitors: 24
Filed: Dec. 21, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2139 In Re: WILLIAM KINNIER QUICK, JR., Debtor. _ WILLIAM KINNIER QUICK, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, and GEORGE EARL LANDEN, Movant - Appellant, versus FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-99-4-6, BK-96-03428-WA1-13) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 21,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2139 In Re: WILLIAM KINNIER QUICK, JR., Debtor. _________________________ WILLIAM KINNIER QUICK, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, and GEORGE EARL LANDEN, Movant - Appellant, versus FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-99-4-6, BK-96-03428-WA1-13) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 21, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Kinnier Quick, Jr., George Earl Landen, Appellants Pro Se. Paul Joseph Feinman, FRALIN, FEINMAN, COATES & KINNIER, P.C., Lynchburg, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Kinnier Quick, Jr., and George E. Landen appeal from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying their motion to set aside a prior order modifying the stay in Quick’s bankruptcy proceeding. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Landen v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., Nos. CA-99-4-6; BK-96-03428- WA1-13 (W.D. Va. July 22, 1999). 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 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer