Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Brasington v. Shapiro, 02-1394 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-1394 Visitors: 291
Filed: Sep. 23, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1394 In Re: BOYCE ALLEN BRASINGTON, Debtor. STANLEY SHAPIRO; DYAN BRASINGTON, Plaintiffs - Appellees, versus BOYCE ALLEN BRASINGTON, Defendant - Appellant, and KIM Y. JOHNSON, Trustee, Trustee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-312-S, BK-00-4129-SD, AP-01-5084-SD) Submitted: August 30, 2002 Decided: September 23, 2002 Be
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1394 In Re: BOYCE ALLEN BRASINGTON, Debtor. STANLEY SHAPIRO; DYAN BRASINGTON, Plaintiffs - Appellees, versus BOYCE ALLEN BRASINGTON, Defendant - Appellant, and KIM Y. JOHNSON, Trustee, Trustee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-312-S, BK-00-4129-SD, AP-01-5084-SD) Submitted: August 30, 2002 Decided: September 23, 2002 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Marcus Slowiak, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellant. Stanley Shapiro, Dyan Brasington, Appellees Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Boyce Allen Brasington appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order determining that a marital debt was not dischargeable in his bankruptcy proceeding. Our review of the record and the opinions below discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Brasington v. Shapiro, Nos. CA-02-312-S; BK-00-4129-SD; AP-01-5084- SD (D. Md. March 7, 2002). The Appellees’ motions for summary affirmance/dismissal, for sanctions, and to impose an appeal bond are hereby denied. 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