Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Vincent Abell v. Maria Wilson, 14-1771 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 14-1771 Visitors: 53
Filed: Mar. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1771 In re: VINCENT L. ABELL, Debtor, - VINCENT L. ABELL, Debtor – Appellant, v. MARIA THERESA WILSON, Appellee, ROGER SCHLOSSBERG, Chapter 11, Trustee - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:14-cv-01037-DKC) Submitted: February 20, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Se
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1771 In re: VINCENT L. ABELL, Debtor, ------------------------------------- VINCENT L. ABELL, Debtor – Appellant, v. MARIA THERESA WILSON, Appellee, ROGER SCHLOSSBERG, Chapter 11, Trustee - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:14-cv-01037-DKC) Submitted: February 20, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Philip J. McNutt, HUGHES & BENTZEN, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Richard M. Goldberg, Anastasia L. McCusker, SHAPIRO, SHER, GUINOT, & SANDLER, Baltimore, Maryland; Randell C. Ogg, LAW OFFICES OF RANDELL C. OGG, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Vincent L. Abell appeals from the district court’s order upholding the bankruptcy court’s order imposing sanctions on Abell for failure to comply with the court’s order compelling his compliance with discovery in his bankruptcy case. On appeal, Abell asserts due process challenges and argues that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by imposing the sanctions. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Abell v. Wilson, No. 8:14-cv-01037-DKC (D. Md. July 3, 2014). 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 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