Elawyers Elawyers
Massachusetts| Change

Robert William Wazney v. Chase, 18-1476 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 18-1476 Visitors: 21
Filed: Aug. 27, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1476 ROBERT WILLIAM WAZNEY, 2040 Hideaway Drive, Debtor - Appellant, v. CHASE, Creditor - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:17-cv-03216-HMH) Submitted: August 23, 2018 Decided: August 27, 2018 Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1476 ROBERT WILLIAM WAZNEY, 2040 Hideaway Drive, Debtor - Appellant, v. CHASE, Creditor - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:17-cv-03216-HMH) Submitted: August 23, 2018 Decided: August 27, 2018 Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Wazney, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas Andrew Charles, Sarah Beth Nielsen, B. Rush Smith, III, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Wazney appeals the district court’s orders: (1) adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss as untimely his appeal from the bankruptcy’s court’s order dismissing his bankruptcy court’s proceeding, and (2) denying his motions to alter or amend the judgment, Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), and for reconsideration, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Chase’s motion to dismiss the appeal and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wazney v. Chase, No. 3:17-cv-03216-HMH (D.S.C. Mar. 27, 2018; Apr. 16, 2018). 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