Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Reid v. Knarf Investments, 09-1304 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-1304 Visitors: 35
Filed: Dec. 01, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1304 JAMES E. REID, Debtor - Appellant, v. KNARF INVESTMENTS, Creditor – Appellee, and ELLEN W. COSBY, Trustee. No. 09-1322 JAMES E. REID, Debtor - Appellant, v. KNARF INVESTMENTS; CURTIS CHARLES COON; JOHN C. SCHROPP; NANCY V. ALQUIST, Judge; SUPERVISOR OF DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS, Defendants – Appellees, and ELLEN W. COSBY, Trustee - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Balt
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1304 JAMES E. REID, Debtor - Appellant, v. KNARF INVESTMENTS, Creditor – Appellee, and ELLEN W. COSBY, Trustee. No. 09-1322 JAMES E. REID, Debtor - Appellant, v. KNARF INVESTMENTS; CURTIS CHARLES COON; JOHN C. SCHROPP; NANCY V. ALQUIST, Judge; SUPERVISOR OF DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS, Defendants – Appellees, and ELLEN W. COSBY, Trustee - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (1:08-cv-00792-BEL; 1:08-cv-02917-BEL; 1:01-bk-50422; 1:05-bk-11977) Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 1, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James E. Reid, Appellant Pro Se. Patrica A. Borenstein, Paul David Trinkoff, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland; John C. Schropp, Towson, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, James E. Reid appeals from the district court’s orders affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders: (1) denying his motion for reconsideration and (2) denying his motion to add additional parties as Appellees. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Reid v. Knarf Invs., Nos. 1:08-cv-00792-BEL; 1:08-cv- 02917-BEL; 1:01-bk-50422; 1:05-bk-11977 (D. Md. March 6, 2009). 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