Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Mason v. Sowell, 03-1909 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-1909 Visitors: 43
Filed: Apr. 30, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1909 E. LOWELL MASON, Debtor - Appellant, versus SUSAN L. SOWELL, Trustee - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-03-234-3; CA-03-271-3; BK-02-33458; AP-03- 3026) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: April 30, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1909 E. LOWELL MASON, Debtor - Appellant, versus SUSAN L. SOWELL, Trustee - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-03-234-3; CA-03-271-3; BK-02-33458; AP-03- 3026) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: April 30, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. E. Lowell Mason, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Leigh Sowell, KAHEN, MUCHIN, ZAVIS & ROSENMAN, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: E. Lowell Mason appeals from the district court’s order dismissing as interlocutory his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s orders: (1) finding him in civil contempt and stating how he may purge that contempt; (2) denying his motion to disqualify the bankruptcy court judge and setting a hearing on other pending motions; and (3) denying his motion to dismiss an adversary proceeding against him. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Mason v. Sowell, Nos. CA-03-234-3, BK-02- 33458, AP-03-3026 (W.D.N.C. filed July 18, 2003, entered July 23, 2003; filed Aug. 4, 2003, entered Aug. 6, 2003). We deny Mason’s motion for clarification of the lower courts’ jurisdiction and 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