Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

In Re: Richardson v., 09-1075 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-1075 Visitors: 52
Filed: Jun. 05, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1075 In Re: LORENZO DOMINIC RICHARDSON, Debtor. - LORENZO DOMINIC RICHARDSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:08-cv-00557-FL) Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 5, 2009 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1075 In Re: LORENZO DOMINIC RICHARDSON, Debtor. ---------------------------------- LORENZO DOMINIC RICHARDSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:08-cv-00557-FL) Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 5, 2009 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lorenzo Dominic Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Brent Drake Kiziah, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Research Triangle, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lorenzo Dominic Richardson appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders upholding the validity of Richardson’s debt to Appellee, and determining that the debt was not dischargeable in Richardson’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Richardson v. The North Carolina State Education Assistance Authority, 5:08-cv-00557-FL (E.D.N.C. Nov. 24, 2008). 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