Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Fields v. Dalkon Shield Trust, 01-1017 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-1017 Visitors: 22
Filed: Mar. 19, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1017 In Re: A. H. ROBINS COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Debtor. ELLEN PAULETTE M. FIELDS, Claimant - Appellant, versus DALKON SHIELD CLAIMANTS TRUST, Trust - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge; Blackwell N. Shelley, Bankruptcy Judge. (CA-85-1307-R) Submitted: February 28, 2001 Decided: March 19, 2001 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1017 In Re: A. H. ROBINS COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Debtor. ELLEN PAULETTE M. FIELDS, Claimant - Appellant, versus DALKON SHIELD CLAIMANTS TRUST, Trust - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge; Blackwell N. Shelley, Bankruptcy Judge. (CA-85-1307-R) Submitted: February 28, 2001 Decided: March 19, 2001 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ellen Paulette M. Fields, Appellant Pro Se. Orran Lee Brown, Sr., Lynn Crowder Greer, BOWMAN & BROOKE, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ellen P. Fields appeals the district court’s order approving the Final Report and Final Account of A. H. Robins Company, grant- ing the Motion to Close the Chapter Eleven bankruptcy case, and retaining exclusive jurisdiction for all purposes set forth in the Robins Plan of Reorganization. None of Fields’ claims, including those of due process and equal protection violations and that the district court should continue to hear her claims related to the Dalkon Shield, has merit. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. 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. The motions for preparation of transcript at government expense and for interlocutory review are denied. 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