Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Monica Stitt v. U.S. Department of Education, 15-1761 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 15-1761 Visitors: 26
Filed: Nov. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1761 MONICA STITT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant – Appellee, and MERRILL COHEN, Chapter 7 Trustee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:14-cv-00938-PJM) Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 23, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1761 MONICA STITT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant – Appellee, and MERRILL COHEN, Chapter 7 Trustee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:14-cv-00938-PJM) Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 23, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Monica Stitt, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Harold Barnard, Jakarra Jenise Jones, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Monica Stitt appeals from the district court’s order upholding the bankruptcy court’s determination that her student loan debt was not dischargeable in her bankruptcy case. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Stitt’s motions for judicial notice and her motions to rescind the orders deferring consideration of her motions for judicial notice, and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Stitt v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., No. 8:14-cv- 00938-PJM (D. Md. filed June 9, 2015; entered June 16, 2015). We deny Stitt’s motion for 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