Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-6-2007 In Re: Shemonsky Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-3093 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007 Recommended Citation "In Re: Shemonsky " (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 464. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/464 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 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. CLD-337 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NOS. 07-3093, 07-3104, & 07-3105 ________________ IN RE: MICHAEL R. SHEMONSKY, Appellant MICHAEL G. OLEYAR, JR., Trustee ____________________________________ On Appeal From the United States District Court For the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. Nos. 07-cv-00765, 07-cv-00766, & 07-cv-00806) District Judge: Honorable Malcolm Muir _______________________________________ Submitted For Possible Dismissal as Moot August 16, 2007 BEFORE: RENDELL, SMITH and JORDAN, CIRCUIT JUDGES (Filed: September 6, 2007) _______________________ OPINION _______________________ PER CURIAM Michael Shemonsky appeals the District Court’s order denying his motions to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Shemonsky filed notices of appeal from the District Court’s order deeming his appeals from three Bankruptcy Court orders withdrawn. These appeals were docketed at C.A. Nos. 07-2784, 07-2790, and 07-2791. Shemonsky filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis in the District Court for each appeal. By order entered July 10, 2007, the District Court denied the motions without prejudice to Shemonsky filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis with this Court. Shemonsky then filed notices of appeal from the District Court’s July 10, 2007 order which were docketed at C.A. Nos. 07-3093, 07-3104, and 07-3105. By order entered July 18, 2007, the Clerk granted Shemonsky’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis in the appeals at C.A. Nos. 07-2784, 07-2790, and 07-2971. Because Shemonsky has now been granted the relief he sought in the District Court, the appeals at C.A. Nos. 07-3093, 07-3104, and 07-3105 are moot. Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeals. 2