Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Tavakoli-Nouri v. Washington Hospital, 97-1221 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-1221 Visitors: 5
Filed: Aug. 20, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1221 In Re: KAMRAN TAVAKOLI-NOURI, Debtor. _ KAMRAN TAVAKOLI-NOURI, a/k/a Mohammed K. Tavakoli-Nouri, a/k/a Kamran Nouri, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WASHINGTON HOSPITAL CENTER; PAUL J. WEBER, Defendants - Appellees, GEORGE W. LIEBMANN; OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRUSTEE, Trustees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-96- 3971-AMD, BK-96-52136
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1221 In Re: KAMRAN TAVAKOLI-NOURI, Debtor. ______________________________ KAMRAN TAVAKOLI-NOURI, a/k/a Mohammed K. Tavakoli-Nouri, a/k/a Kamran Nouri, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WASHINGTON HOSPITAL CENTER; PAUL J. WEBER, Defendants - Appellees, GEORGE W. LIEBMANN; OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRUSTEE, Trustees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-96- 3971-AMD, BK-96-52136-JFS) Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 20, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kamran Tavakoli-Nouri, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Edward Rubin, RUBIN & RUBIN, P.C., Silver Spring, Maryland, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order affirming the bankruptcy court's order denying his various motions. 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. Tavakoli-Nouri v. Washington Hosp., Nos. CA-96- 3971-AMD; BK-96-52136-JFS (D. Md. Jan. 10 & 23, 1997). Addition- ally, we deny the Appellant's motion for production of a transcript at government expense. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials 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