Filed: May 31, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-31-2005 Shemonsky v. Resolution Trust Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-4649 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005 Recommended Citation "Shemonsky v. Resolution Trust" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1111. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1111 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by
Summary: Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-31-2005 Shemonsky v. Resolution Trust Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-4649 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005 Recommended Citation "Shemonsky v. Resolution Trust" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1111. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1111 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by ..
More
Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-31-2005
Shemonsky v. Resolution Trust
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-4649
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Shemonsky v. Resolution Trust" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1111.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1111
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 04-4649
________________
MICHAEL R. SHEMONSKY,
Appellant
v.
RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 93-cv-0004)
District Judge: Honorable Bruce W. Kauffman
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 18, 2005
Before: NYGAARD, VAN ANTWERPEN AND STAPLETON, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed May 31, 2005 )
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Michael Shemonsky appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his “Motion for
60(b) Judicial Fraud by the Court of Appeals” 1 and his “Motion to Discover Ernst &
Young, LLP Accounting Files.” In his Rule 60(b) motion, Shemonsky requested the
return of the assets of Atlantic Financial Federal and monetary damages. In the discovery
motion, Shemonsky sought the accounting files of Atlantic Financial Federal held by
Ernst & Young. The District Court dismissed the motions because it determined
Shemonsky had been enjoined from filing pleadings in the District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania and had not received approval for the filing of the motions. The
District Court also ordered that no further pleadings be docketed in the case without prior
approval by the Court. Shemonsky filed a timely notice of appeal and we have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
While the District Court in its February 22, 1993 order gave Shemonsky thirty days
to show cause why he should not be enjoined, it appears from the docket and the record
that the District Court never subsequently entered an injunction against Shemonsky.
However, we may affirm the District Court on any ground supported by the record.
Tourscher v. McCullough,
184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999). Shemonsky did not set forth
any adequate basis for the relief that he sought in the motions.
1
Although the title of the motion implies fraud by this Court, because Shemonsky
does not make any specific allegations of fraud and none of the members of this panel
participated in the 1990 appeal he submitted to support the motion, we decline to recuse
ourselves.
2
Because the instant motions are clearly without merit, we will affirm the District
Court’s order.
3