Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

DeTemple v. Sheehan, 01-2409 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-2409 Visitors: 23
Filed: Aug. 23, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2409 In Re: GARY L. DETEMPLE, Debtor. GARY L. DETEMPLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARTIN P. SHEEHAN, Trustee; JOHN N. CHARNOCK, JR., Trustee; THOMAS H. FLUHARTY, Trustee, Defendants - Appellees, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Party in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-149-5, BK-95-50154) Submitted
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2409 In Re: GARY L. DETEMPLE, Debtor. GARY L. DETEMPLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARTIN P. SHEEHAN, Trustee; JOHN N. CHARNOCK, JR., Trustee; THOMAS H. FLUHARTY, Trustee, Defendants - Appellees, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Party in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-149-5, BK-95-50154) Submitted: July 31, 2002 Decided: August 23, 2002 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary L. DeTemple, Appellant Pro Se. Martin P. Sheehan, SHEEHAN & NUGENT, Wheeling, West Virginia; John N. Charnock, Jr., CHARNOCK & CHARNOCK, Charleston, West Virginia; Thomas H. Fluharty, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gary L. DeTemple appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider a prior order denying his motion for recusal of the district court judge. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. DeTemple v. Sheehan, Nos. CA-00-149-5; BK-95-50154 (N.D.W. Va. Oct. 9, 2001). 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 2
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