Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Terry v. Sparrow, 05-1433 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-1433 Visitors: 20
Filed: Apr. 05, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1433 In Re: GARY IVAN TERRY, Debtor. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GARY IVAN TERRY, Debtor - Appellant, versus SARAH F. SPARROW, Trustee - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-1195-1; BK-01-10059) Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 5, 2006 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed b
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1433 In Re: GARY IVAN TERRY, Debtor. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GARY IVAN TERRY, Debtor - Appellant, versus SARAH F. SPARROW, Trustee - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-1195-1; BK-01-10059) Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 5, 2006 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Ivan Terry, Appellant Pro Se. Sarah Flintom Sparrow, Cynthia Munk Swindlehurst, TUGGLE, DUGGINS & MESCHAN, PA, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Gary Ivan Terry seeks to appeal from the district court’s order dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s orders denying his motions to review an agency decision, to dismiss the bankruptcy case, and to remove the bankruptcy trustee. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. See Terry v. Sparrow, Nos. CA-03-1195-1; BK-01-10059 (M.D.N.C. filed Mar. 30, 2005; entered Mar. 31, 2005 & Apr. 22, 2005). Additionally, we deny Terry’s motions for a rehearing of the denial of his motion to disqualify counsel for the Appellee, for sanctions, for appointment of counsel, for review under the Administrative Procedures Act of Appellee’s informal brief, to expedite oral argument, and to consolidate this appeal with three other pending appeals. 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. DISMISSED - 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