Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Bennett v. HFTA First Financial, 06-1573 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-1573 Visitors: 3
Filed: Nov. 02, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1573 BRUCE BENNETT, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HFTA FIRST FINANCIAL; BAY VIEW BANK; MANUFACTURERS & TRADERS TRUST COMPANY, as trustee for Securitization Series 1977-3 Agreement dated 6/12/97, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (2:04-cv-23129-CWH; BK-04-09737-WB) Submitted: October 31, 2006 Dec
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1573 BRUCE BENNETT, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HFTA FIRST FINANCIAL; BAY VIEW BANK; MANUFACTURERS & TRADERS TRUST COMPANY, as trustee for Securitization Series 1977-3 Agreement dated 6/12/97, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (2:04-cv-23129-CWH; BK-04-09737-WB) Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 2, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce Bennett, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Weston Adams, III, MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Bruce Bennett, Sr., appeals the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing his Chapter 13 petition with prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bennett v. HFTA First Fin., Nos. 2:04-cv- 23129-CWH; BK-04-09737-WB (D.S.C. May 2, 2006). We grant Bennett’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis 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 -
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