Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Sawyer v. Worcester, 06-1110 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-1110 Visitors: 29
Filed: Aug. 23, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1110 In Re: AVA MAUREEN SAWYER, Debtor. - AVA MAUREEN SAWYER, Debtor - Appellant, versus DEAN S. WORCESTER; PRESTON CONNER, Creditors - Appellees, ROBERT E. HYMAN, Trustee - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:05-cv-00644-HEH; BK-04-39378) Submitted: July 25, 2006 Decided: August 23, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAX
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1110 In Re: AVA MAUREEN SAWYER, Debtor. ---------------------------- AVA MAUREEN SAWYER, Debtor - Appellant, versus DEAN S. WORCESTER; PRESTON CONNER, Creditors - Appellees, ROBERT E. HYMAN, Trustee - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:05-cv-00644-HEH; BK-04-39378) Submitted: July 25, 2006 Decided: August 23, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ava Maureen Sawyer, Appellant Pro Se. John David Griffin, FOWLER, GRIFFIN, COYNE & COYNE, P.C., Winchester, Virginia, for Appellee Preston Conner. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Ava Maureen Sawyer appeals the district court’s orders affirming the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of her Chapter 13 petition and denying her motions for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sawyer v. Worcester, Nos. 3:05-cv-00644-HEH; BK-04-39378 (E.D. Va. Nov. 22, 2005, Dec. 9, 2005 & Dec. 23, 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 * In light of this disposition, we deny as moot Sawyer’s motion for stay. - 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