Filed: Jul. 28, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1143 In Re: KONDIAN R. RAJARAM, Debtor. _ PHILLIP MIZRACH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KONDIAN R. RAJARAM, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-2272-H, BK-97-50467-ESD, AP-97-5233-ESD) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 28, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by un
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1143 In Re: KONDIAN R. RAJARAM, Debtor. _ PHILLIP MIZRACH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KONDIAN R. RAJARAM, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-2272-H, BK-97-50467-ESD, AP-97-5233-ESD) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 28, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unp..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-1143
In Re: KONDIAN R. RAJARAM,
Debtor.
_________________________
PHILLIP MIZRACH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
KONDIAN R. RAJARAM,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District
Judge. (CA-98-2272-H, BK-97-50467-ESD, AP-97-5233-ESD)
Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 28, 1999
Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Phillip Mizrach, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Stewart Rosenthal,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Phillip Mizrach appeals from the district court’s order af-
firming the bankruptcy court’s decision that the debt owed to
Mizrach by Kondian Rajaram is dischargeable in bankruptcy. We have
reviewed the record and the lower courts’ opinions and orders and
find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Mizrach v.
Rajaram, Nos. CA-98-2272-H; BK-97-50467-ESD (D. Md. Dec. 29, 1998
& Jan. 13, 1999).* 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
*
Although the district court’s order is signed December 28,
1998, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the
docket sheet on December 29, 1998. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the
order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective
date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray,
806
F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
2