Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Kidd v. Dalkon Shield Trust, 98-2269 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-2269 Visitors: 48
Filed: Mar. 17, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2269 In Re: A. H. ROBINS COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Debtor. _ GLENNA KIDD, Claimant - Appellant, versus DALKON SHIELD CLAIMANTS TRUST, Trust - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge; Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge; Blackwell N. Shelley, Bankruptcy Judge. (CA-85-1307-R) Submitted: January 26, 1999 Decided: March 17,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2269 In Re: A. H. ROBINS COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Debtor. _________________________ GLENNA KIDD, Claimant - Appellant, versus DALKON SHIELD CLAIMANTS TRUST, Trust - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge; Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge; Blackwell N. Shelley, Bankruptcy Judge. (CA-85-1307-R) Submitted: January 26, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999 Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glenna Kidd, Appellant Pro Se. Orran Lee Brown, Sr., DALKON SHIELD CLAIMANTS TRUST, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Glenna Kidd appeals the district court’s order denying her mo- tion for relief from stay, ordering her to pay $2105 in previously imposed sanctions, and permanently enjoining her from filing fur- ther actions pertaining to the Dalkon Shield or her Dalkon Shield claim.* 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. See In re A. H. Robins Co. (Kidd v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust), No. CA-85-1307-R (E.D. Va. July 24, 1998). 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 * Under § 8.04 of the Debtor’s Sixth Amended and Restated Plan of Reorganization, Kidd was already subject to such an injunction. 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