Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Wilkins v. Murray, 01-2165 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-2165 Visitors: 7
Filed: Mar. 12, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2165 In Re: MICHAEL D. WILKINS, Debtor. MICHAEL D. WILKINS, Debtor - Appellant, versus JAMES MURRAY; ANZILIA W. MURRAY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-840-3, BK-99-34315-SCS, 00-3024-AP, 00- 3048-AP, 00-3060-AP, 00-3075-AP, 00-3139-AP, 00-3163-AP) Submitted: February 25, 2002 Decided: M
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2165 In Re: MICHAEL D. WILKINS, Debtor. MICHAEL D. WILKINS, Debtor - Appellant, versus JAMES MURRAY; ANZILIA W. MURRAY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-840-3, BK-99-34315-SCS, 00-3024-AP, 00- 3048-AP, 00-3060-AP, 00-3075-AP, 00-3139-AP, 00-3163-AP) Submitted: February 25, 2002 Decided: March 12, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael D. Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce H. Matson, Troy Savenko, LECLAIR RYAN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael D. Wilkins appeals from the district court’s orders affirming the bankruptcy court’s resolution of his objection to Appellees’ amended proof of claim and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s orders, and the bankruptcy court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Wilkins v. Murray, Nos. CA-00-840-3; BK-99-34315-SCS (E.D. Va. July 12, 2001; July 27, 2001). 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