Filed: Feb. 01, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2192 STEPHEN M. WRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, and PERRYVILLE INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, Plaintiff, versus RONALD J. DRESCHER, Defendant - Appellee, and UNITED STATES TRUSTEE FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, Trustee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 04-1170-CCB; BK-01-59530) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 1, 2005 Before
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2192 STEPHEN M. WRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, and PERRYVILLE INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, Plaintiff, versus RONALD J. DRESCHER, Defendant - Appellee, and UNITED STATES TRUSTEE FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, Trustee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 04-1170-CCB; BK-01-59530) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 1, 2005 Before L..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2192
STEPHEN M. WRIGHT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
PERRYVILLE INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC,
Plaintiff,
versus
RONALD J. DRESCHER,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
UNITED STATES TRUSTEE FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MARYLAND,
Trustee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-
04-1170-CCB; BK-01-59530)
Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 1, 2005
Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen M. Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald J. Drescher, Appellee
Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Stephen M. Wright appeals from the district court’s
orders dismissing his appeal from three bankruptcy court orders for
failure to comply with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8006, and denying his
motions for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the
district court’s orders and find no reversible error and no abuse
of discretion. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001(a); In re SPR Corp.,
45
F.3d 70, 74 (4th Cir. 1995); In re Serra Builders, Inc.,
970 F.2d
1309, 1311 (4th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. Perryville Inv. Group, LLC v.
Drescher, Nos. CA-04-1170-CCB; BK-01-59530 (D. Md. Aug. 11, 2004 &
June 23, 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 -