Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Buljat v. Federal Home, 97-2768 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-2768 Visitors: 12
Filed: Jul. 16, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2768 In Re: CATHERINE STARUCH, Debtor. _ NICHOLAS R. BULJAT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION; DEBORAH CURRAN, Trustee; BANK/AMERICA, ser- vicing loan; MS. OOSTEERHOOT; TRACY BERRETT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge; Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-97-2868-CCB,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2768 In Re: CATHERINE STARUCH, Debtor. _________________________ NICHOLAS R. BULJAT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION; DEBORAH CURRAN, Trustee; BANK/AMERICA, ser- vicing loan; MS. OOSTEERHOOT; TRACY BERRETT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge; Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-97-2868-CCB, BK-97-3621-5- JS) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 16, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON,* Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nicholas R. Buljat, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah Kay Curran, Laurel, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). * Judge Hamilton did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court’s orders: (1) dis- missing, as untimely filed, Appellant’s appeal from the bankruptcy court’s orders, and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appel- lant’s motion for sanctions and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Buljat v. Federal Home Mortgage Corp., Nos. CA-97- 2868-CCB, BK-97-3621-5-JS (D. Md. Dec. 5, 1997). Appellees’ motion for sanctions is also denied. We deny Appellant’s motion for 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