Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Miller v. CIGNA, 04-1878 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1878 Visitors: 12
Filed: Dec. 20, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1878 WILLIAM RAY MILLER, Debtor - Appellant, and DONNA MANNINO, Claimant, versus CIGNA INSURANCE COMPANY, Creditor - Appellee, JAMES R. WOOTON, Trustee; CHARLES R. GOLDSTEIN, Trustee, Trustees, and THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA; CENTURY INDEMNITY COMPANY; CIGNA FIRE UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY; CIGNA PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA; PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANC
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1878 WILLIAM RAY MILLER, Debtor - Appellant, and DONNA MANNINO, Claimant, versus CIGNA INSURANCE COMPANY, Creditor - Appellee, JAMES R. WOOTON, Trustee; CHARLES R. GOLDSTEIN, Trustee, Trustees, and THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA; CENTURY INDEMNITY COMPANY; CIGNA FIRE UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY; CIGNA PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA; PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY; BANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, Creditors. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-215-1-WDQ, CA-04-216-1-WDQ, BK-00-1758-6-JS) Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 20, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James R. Schraf, LIPSHULTZ AND HONE, CHARTERED, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Carol L. Hoshall, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: William Ray Miller appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order determining that a debt Miller owed to Cigna Insurance Company was not dischargeable in his bankruptcy proceeding. Our review of the record and the opinions below discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Miller v. Cigna Ins. Co., Nos. CA-04-215-1-WDQ, CA-04-216-WDQ, BK-00-1758-6-JS (D. Md. June 17, 2004). 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 - 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