Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Strassini v. Tadlock, 03-1386 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-1386 Visitors: 53
Filed: Feb. 04, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1386 JOHN D. STRASSINI, Plaintiff - Appellant, and REBECCA A. STRASSINI, Plaintiff, versus WARREN L. TADLOCK; IMC MORTGAGE COMPANY; GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, NC; HOMEGOLD MORTGAGE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-00-73-3-V; BK-99-32153; BK-00-30030) Submitted: January 29, 200
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1386 JOHN D. STRASSINI, Plaintiff - Appellant, and REBECCA A. STRASSINI, Plaintiff, versus WARREN L. TADLOCK; IMC MORTGAGE COMPANY; GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, NC; HOMEGOLD MORTGAGE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-00-73-3-V; BK-99-32153; BK-00-30030) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 4, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John D. Strassini, Appellant Pro Se. Warren Lee Tadlock, Charlotte, North Carolina; Alexandria P. Kenny, SHAPIRO & INGLE, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina; Wallace S. Osborne, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John D. Strassini appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders: (1) denying confirmation of his Chapter 13 plan, and (2) dismissing a petition filed by Strassini’s former wife. Our review of the record and the opinions below discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Strassini v. Tadlock, Nos. CA-00-73-3-V; BK-99-32153; BK-00-30030 (W.D.N.C. filed Sept. 26, 2002 and entered Sept. 27, 2002). 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