Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Green v. Midland Mortgage, 95-3152 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-3152 Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 18, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-3152 In Re: CORLIA NAOMI GREEN, Debtor. _ CORLIA NAOMI GREEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, and JAMES GREEN, JR., Plaintiff, versus MIDLAND MORTGAGE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee, and THOMAS L. LACKEY, Party in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-3524-AW, BK-95-1-1082-DK) Submitted: December 12, 1996 Decided: December 18,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-3152 In Re: CORLIA NAOMI GREEN, Debtor. _________________________ CORLIA NAOMI GREEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, and JAMES GREEN, JR., Plaintiff, versus MIDLAND MORTGAGE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee, and THOMAS L. LACKEY, Party in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-3524-AW, BK-95-1-1082-DK) Submitted: December 12, 1996 Decided: December 18, 1996 2 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Corlia Naomi Green, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Joseph DiPaula, COVAHEY & BOOZER, Towson, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying as un- timely her motion for leave to appeal from an order of the bank- ruptcy court granting relief from an automatic stay. Finding no reversible error, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Green v. Midland Mortgage Co., Nos. CA-95-3524-AW; BK-95-1-1082-DK (D. Md. Dec. 1, 1995). We deny Appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal and we deny Appellant's motion to appoint counsel. 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