Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Wilkins v. Benchmark Community, 02-1544 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-1544 Visitors: 24
Filed: Nov. 20, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1544 MICHAEL D. WILKINS, Debtor - Appellant, versus BENCHMARK COMMUNITY BANK, Creditor - Appellee, KEITH PHILLIPS, Trustee, Trustee - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-02-154-3, BK-99-34315) Submitted: September 25, 2002 Decided: November 20, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1544 MICHAEL D. WILKINS, Debtor - Appellant, versus BENCHMARK COMMUNITY BANK, Creditor - Appellee, KEITH PHILLIPS, Trustee, Trustee - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-02-154-3, BK-99-34315) Submitted: September 25, 2002 Decided: November 20, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael D. Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se. James Joseph Burns, LAW OFFICE OF JAMES J. BURNS, P.L.C., Richmond, Virginia; David Richard Ruby, MCSWEENEY & CRUMP, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order approving the sale of certain real estate in the underlying bankruptcy proceeding. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinions discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court. See Wilkins v. Benchmark Community Bank, Nos. CA- 02-154-3; BK-99-34315 (E.D. Va. filed & entered Apr. 24, 2002; filed May 13, 2002 & entered May 14, 2002). We deny Wilkins’ motion for reconsideration of this court’s prior order denying his motions to expedite and for a stay. 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