Filed: Jun. 25, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2482 MICHAEL D. WILKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KEITH PHILLIPS, Trustee, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CA-03-493-3; BK-99-34315) Submitted: May 10, 2004 Decided: June 25, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael D. Wilkins, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2482 MICHAEL D. WILKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KEITH PHILLIPS, Trustee, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CA-03-493-3; BK-99-34315) Submitted: May 10, 2004 Decided: June 25, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael D. Wilkins, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2482 MICHAEL D. WILKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KEITH PHILLIPS, Trustee, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CA-03-493-3; BK-99-34315) Submitted: May 10, 2004 Decided: June 25, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael D. Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se. David Richard Ruby, MCSWEENEY & CRUMP, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael D. Wilkins appeals the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Wilkins’ motion to reconsider a prior order denying his request for an accounting from the bankruptcy trustee. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Wilkins v. Phillips, Nos. CA-03-493-3; BK- 99-34315 (E.D. Va. Oct. 14, 2003). We deny Wilkins’ motion for a change of venue and 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 -