Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Fortescue v. Hillier, 95-2722 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-2722 Visitors: 44
Filed: Aug. 02, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2722 WILLIAM NICHOLAS FORTESCUE, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID R. HILLIER, Trustee; JERRY E. KING, Court-appointed Auctioneer; ROBERT CAMILLE; HISTORIC FLAT ROCK; W.R. TABER; SIDNEY KIRKLEY; LINDA OSTEEN BENTLEY; HARLEY OSTEEN; HARVEY SPIEGEL; GREGORY P. JUSTUS; HILDA CAMILLE; BRENDA B. BRYSON; CLIFFORD SHIPMAN; DELORES J. SHIPMAN; ROSCOE GREEN; NANCY GREEN; TOM LONG; CHRISTINA LONG; CHARLES T. LARUS, Defendants
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2722 WILLIAM NICHOLAS FORTESCUE, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID R. HILLIER, Trustee; JERRY E. KING, Court-appointed Auctioneer; ROBERT CAMILLE; HISTORIC FLAT ROCK; W.R. TABER; SIDNEY KIRKLEY; LINDA OSTEEN BENTLEY; HARLEY OSTEEN; HARVEY SPIEGEL; GREGORY P. JUSTUS; HILDA CAMILLE; BRENDA B. BRYSON; CLIFFORD SHIPMAN; DELORES J. SHIPMAN; ROSCOE GREEN; NANCY GREEN; TOM LONG; CHRISTINA LONG; CHARLES T. LARUS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-65, BK-93-10347) Submitted: January 30, 1996 Decided: August 2, 1996 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Nicholas Fortescue, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. David G. Gray, Jr., WESTALL, GRAY, KIMEL & CONNOLLY, Asheville, North Carolina; Robert Keith Johnson, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders dismissing his bankruptcy appeal and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Fortescue v. Hillier, Nos. CA-95-65; BK-93- 10347 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 18 & Aug. 22, 1995). 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 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