Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Joseph Sun v. Eric Erickson, 19-1539 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-1539 Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 23, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1836 JOSEPH C. SUN, Creditor - Appellant, v. ERIC JONATHAN ERICKSON, Debtor – Appellee, KEVIN CAMPBELL, Trustee - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:12-cv-03582-RMG) Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013 Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jo
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1836 JOSEPH C. SUN, Creditor - Appellant, v. ERIC JONATHAN ERICKSON, Debtor – Appellee, KEVIN CAMPBELL, Trustee - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:12-cv-03582-RMG) Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013 Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph C. Sun, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Jonathan Erickson, SEA ISLAND CRIMINAL LAW, Beaufort, South Carolina; Kevin Campbell, CAMPBELL LAW FIRM, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, Appellees Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joseph C. Sun appeals from the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders denying Sun’s motion to reopen Eric Erickson’s bankruptcy case, striking Sun’s attempt to initiate an adversary proceeding, and denying his motion to reconsider those orders. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion by the bankruptcy court. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the lower courts. Sun v. Erickson, No. 2:12-cv-03582-RMG (D.S.C. June 17, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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