Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Mathis v. Mid-State Homes, 02-1321 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-1321 Visitors: 36
Filed: Sep. 04, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1321 In Re: THELMA MATHIS, Debtor. THELMA L. MATHIS, Appellant, versus MID-STATE HOMES, INCORPORATED; JIM WALTER HOMES, INC., Appellees, and ROBERT KANE, Trustee, Party-in-interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-1791, BK-99-10158-SSM) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 4, 2002 Before WIDENER and MICH
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1321 In Re: THELMA MATHIS, Debtor. THELMA L. MATHIS, Appellant, versus MID-STATE HOMES, INCORPORATED; JIM WALTER HOMES, INC., Appellees, and ROBERT KANE, Trustee, Party-in-interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-1791, BK-99-10158-SSM) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 4, 2002 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thelma L. Mathis, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Keith Gallagher, LECLAIR RYAN, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Thelma L. Mathis appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders denying relief on her claims and determining the amounts due under a secured deed of trust on Mathis’ real property. Our review of the record and the opinions below discloses no reversible error. As the district court correctly noted, the bankruptcy court’s thorough opinions reflect no error. Accordingly, we affirm. See Mathis v. Mid-State Homes, Inc., Nos. CA-01-1791-A (E.D. Va. Feb. 22, 2002); BK-99-10158-SSM (Bankr. E.D. Va. July 25, 2001 & Jan. 22, 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