Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hollar v. United States, 96-1016 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-1016 Visitors: 16
Filed: Aug. 07, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1016 In Re: WILBUR P. HOLLAR; RUTH CAROL HOLLAR, Debtors. _ WILBUR P. HOLLAR; RUTH CAROL HOLLAR, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-669-2) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 7, 1996 Before LUTTIG an
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1016 In Re: WILBUR P. HOLLAR; RUTH CAROL HOLLAR, Debtors. _________________________ WILBUR P. HOLLAR; RUTH CAROL HOLLAR, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-669-2) 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wilbur P. Hollar, Ruth Carol Hollar, Appellants Pro Se. Robert William Metzler, Gary Dexter Gray, Gary R. Allen, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 affirming the bankruptcy court's order dismissing their adversary proceeding in which Appellants sought to quiet title to property and also sought a declaratory judgment as to their interest in the property. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hollar v. United States, No. CA-95-669-2 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 27, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials 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