Filed: Apr. 12, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1735 In Re: MUHSEN A. HADDAD, Debtor. - BROTHERLY LOVE, LLC, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MUHSEN A. HADDAD, Defendant - Appellee, and UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, Party in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:06- cv-00061-PJM; 05-17608) Submitted: March 28, 2007 Decided: April 12, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1735 In Re: MUHSEN A. HADDAD, Debtor. - BROTHERLY LOVE, LLC, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MUHSEN A. HADDAD, Defendant - Appellee, and UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, Party in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:06- cv-00061-PJM; 05-17608) Submitted: March 28, 2007 Decided: April 12, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1735
In Re: MUHSEN A. HADDAD,
Debtor.
-------------------------
BROTHERLY LOVE, LLC,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MUHSEN A. HADDAD,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
UNITED STATES TRUSTEE,
Party in Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:06-
cv-00061-PJM; 05-17608)
Submitted: March 28, 2007 Decided: April 12, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary A. Rosen, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Richard H.
Gins, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Brotherly Love, LLC, appeals from the district court’s
order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting the motion of
the debtor, Muhsen A. Haddad, to dismiss his Chapter 7 bankruptcy
case. We have reviewed the record and decisions of the bankruptcy
court and the district court and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm. See In re O’Brien Envtl. Energy, Inc.,
181
F.3d 527, 531 (3d Cir. 1999). 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 -