Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Leevy v. McCarthy, 95-2986 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-2986 Visitors: 22
Filed: Aug. 07, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2986 In Re: LEEVY'S FUNERAL HOME, Debtor. _ GLORIA Y. LEEVY; GREGORY K. LEEVY, Appellants, versus G. WILLIAM MCCARTHY, Trustee - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-2288-3-17, BK-94-75327) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 7, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judg
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2986 In Re: LEEVY'S FUNERAL HOME, Debtor. _________________________ GLORIA Y. LEEVY; GREGORY K. LEEVY, Appellants, versus G. WILLIAM MCCARTHY, Trustee - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-2288-3-17, BK-94-75327) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 7, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gloria Y. Leevy, Gregory K. Leevy, Appellants Pro Se. William Earl Calloway, Sr., Eleanor Katherine Wells, ROBINSON, MENDOZA, BARTON, MCCARTHY & CALLOWAY, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal from the district court's order dismissing as moot their appeal from the bankruptcy court's orders authorizing the sale of Leevy's Funeral Home, Inc. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Ac- cordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Leevy v. McCarthy, Nos. CA-95-2288-3-17; BK-94-75327 (D.S.C. Oct. 12, 1995). Further, we grant Appellee's motion to strike exhibits which are not part of the record on appeal and deny Appellee's motion to strike the supplement to Appellants' informal brief. 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 3
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