Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Crawford v. Mullins, 03-2242 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-2242 Visitors: 29
Filed: Mar. 19, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2242 BARRETT L. CRAWFORD, Trustee - Appellant, versus JOHN ROBERT MULLINS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-03-12-5-V; BK-98-50517; AP-00-5013) Submitted: February 27, 2004 Decided: March 19, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2242 BARRETT L. CRAWFORD, Trustee - Appellant, versus JOHN ROBERT MULLINS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-03-12-5-V; BK-98-50517; AP-00-5013) Submitted: February 27, 2004 Decided: March 19, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard M. Mitchell, MITCHELL, RALLINGS, SINGER, MCGIRT & TISSUE, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Roberts Mullins, Appellee Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Barrett L. Crawford, the bankruptcy trustee in John Robert Mullins’ Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting in part motions to quash subpoenas issued by Crawford to three law firms seeking the production of documents from the law firms related to the firms’ representation of Mullins or any communications between Mullins and the law firms. We have reviewed the record and lower courts’ opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Crawford v. Mullins, Nos. CA-03-12-5-V, BK-98-50517, AP-00-5013 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 10, 2003). 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