Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

92-1920 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-1920 Visitors: 25
Filed: May 18, 1993
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 993 F.2d 1541 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. In Re: George WEBER and Marcelle Weber, Debtors. Peter C. Andresen, Creditor-Appellant, v. Terence GARVEY, Trustee for George Weber and Marcelle Weber, Trustee-Appellee, and Merrill COHEN, Substitute Trustee for the Bankruptcy Es
More

993 F.2d 1541

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
In Re: George WEBER and Marcelle Weber, Debtors. Peter C.
Andresen, Creditor-Appellant,
v.
Terence GARVEY, Trustee for George Weber and Marcelle Weber,
Trustee-Appellee,
and
Merrill COHEN, Substitute Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate
of George Weber and Marcelle Weber, Trustee.

No. 92-1920.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 10, 1993
May 18, 1993

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Edward S. Northrop, Senior District Judge. (CA-90-2361-N, BK-86-2983-PM)

Peter C. Andresen, Appellant Pro Se.

Merrill Cohen, Cohen & Baldinger, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellee.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

OPINION

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Peter C. Andresen appeals from the district court's order dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court for failure to prosecute. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Andresen v. Garvey, No. CA-90-2361-N (D. Md. June 29, 1992). 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

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