Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Williams v. EMC Mortgage, 05-1769 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-1769 Visitors: 22
Filed: May 01, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1769 In Re: JONITA V. WILLIAMS, Debtor. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JONITA V. WILLIAMS, Debtor - Appellant, versus EMC MORTGAGE COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-05-148; BK-03-13364-RGM; AP-04-1008-RGM) Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 1, 2006 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circ
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1769 In Re: JONITA V. WILLIAMS, Debtor. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JONITA V. WILLIAMS, Debtor - Appellant, versus EMC MORTGAGE COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-05-148; BK-03-13364-RGM; AP-04-1008-RGM) Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 1, 2006 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonita V. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Diane Sally Rosenberg, Mark David Meyer, ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Jonita V. Williams appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders dismissing her adversary proceeding pursuant to a settlement agreement and denying her motion for reconsideration of that dismissal. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Williams v. EMC Mortgage Co., Nos. CA-05-148; BK-03-13364; AP-04-1008 (E.D. Va. filed June 10, 2005; entered June 16, 2005). 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 - 3 -
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