Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Forst v. Dept of the Treasury, 19-4367 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-4367 Visitors: 20
Filed: Aug. 20, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1171 In Re: JOSEPH PETER FORST, Debtor. _ JOSEPH PETER FORST, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Internal Revenue Service, Defendant - Appellee, and THOMAS L. LACKEY, Party in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 96-1585-PJM, BK-95-15286) Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 20, 1997 Before NIEM
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1171 In Re: JOSEPH PETER FORST, Debtor. _________________________ JOSEPH PETER FORST, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Internal Revenue Service, Defendant - Appellee, and THOMAS L. LACKEY, Party in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 96-1585-PJM, BK-95-15286) 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Peter Forst, Appellant Pro Se. Marion Elizabeth Erickson, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's orders dismissing his petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code and denying his motion for recon- sideration. 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. Forst v. Department of the Trea- sury, Nos. CA-96-1585-PJM; BK-95-15286 (D. Md. Jan. 9, 1997). 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