Filed: Apr. 29, 2009
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1826 PRAMCO II, LLC, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID M. KISSI, Defendant – Appellant, and EDITH TRUVILLION KISSI, Defendant, CARLOS M. RECIO, Party-in-Interest, BANK OF AMERICA, NA; MONTGOMERY COUNTY ACTIVE EMPLOYEES; AMMENDALE LIVING TRUST, Garnishees. No. 08-1827 PRAMCO II, LLC, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID M. KISSI, Defendant – Appellant, and EDITH TRUVILLION KISSI, Defendant, RICHARD M. KREMEN, Party-in-Interest, MONT
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1826 PRAMCO II, LLC, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID M. KISSI, Defendant – Appellant, and EDITH TRUVILLION KISSI, Defendant, CARLOS M. RECIO, Party-in-Interest, BANK OF AMERICA, NA; MONTGOMERY COUNTY ACTIVE EMPLOYEES; AMMENDALE LIVING TRUST, Garnishees. No. 08-1827 PRAMCO II, LLC, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID M. KISSI, Defendant – Appellant, and EDITH TRUVILLION KISSI, Defendant, RICHARD M. KREMEN, Party-in-Interest, MONTG..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1826 PRAMCO II, LLC, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID M. KISSI, Defendant – Appellant, and EDITH TRUVILLION KISSI, Defendant, CARLOS M. RECIO, Party-in-Interest, BANK OF AMERICA, NA; MONTGOMERY COUNTY ACTIVE EMPLOYEES; AMMENDALE LIVING TRUST, Garnishees. No. 08-1827 PRAMCO II, LLC, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID M. KISSI, Defendant – Appellant, and EDITH TRUVILLION KISSI, Defendant, RICHARD M. KREMEN, Party-in-Interest, MONTGOMERY COUNTY ACTIVE EMPLOYEES; AMMENDALE LIVING TRUST; KEY BANK & TRUST, Garnishees. No. 08-1829 PRAMCO II, LLC; EMIL HIRSCH; O’CONNOR & HANNAN, LLP, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. DAVID M. KISSI, Individually and in his capacity as Co- Trustee of the Ammendale Living Trust, Defendant – Appellant, and EDITH TRUVILLION KISSI, Individually and in her capacity as Co-Trustee of the Ammendale Living Trust; AMMENDALE LIVING TRUST, Defendants, CHRISTOPHER BOWMAR MEAD; RICHARD M. KREMEN; JOSE ANDRADE; DLA PIPER US LLP; ROBERT ERIC GREENBERG, Parties-in-Interest, 2 DAVID MUCHOW, Respondent, AMMENDALE LIVING TRUST, Garnishee, v. MICHAEL PEARSON; BENNETT AND BAIR, LLP, Movants. No. 08-1835 PRAMCO II, LLC, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID M. KISSI, Defendant - Appellant, and EDITH TRUVILLION KISSI, Defendant, MONTGOMERY COUNTY ACTIVE EMPLOYEES; AMMENDALE LIVING TRUST, Garnishees. No. 08-1837 In Re: DK & R COMPANY, Debtor – Party Below. 3 ---------------------------------------------- DAVID M. KISSI, Party-in-Interest – Appellant, and EDITH TRUVILLION KISSI, Party-in-Interest, v. RICHARD M.KREMEN, Trustee - Appellee. No. 08-1872 In Re: DK & R COMPANY, Debtor. ------------------------------------------- DAVID M. KISSI, Party-in-Interest - Appellant, and EDITH TRUVILLION KISSI, Party-in-Interest, v. RICHARD M. KREMEN, Trustee - Appellee. 4 Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:02-cv-00042-PJM; 8:02-cv-00043-PJM; 8:03-cv-02241- PJM; 8:02-cv-00044-PJM; 8:08-cv-00748-PJM) Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: April 29, 2009 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David M. Kissi, Appellant Pro Se. Emil Hirsch, James Patrick Ryan, NOSSAMAN, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Maria Ellena Chavez Ruark, DLA PIPER US LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 5 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, David M. Kissi appeals from the district court’s orders denying as frivolous his multiple motions for recusal, return of fees, and to dissolve a prefiling injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny all of Kissi’s pending motions and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Pramco II, LLC v. Kissi, Nos. 8:02-cv-00042-PJM 8:02-cv-00043- PJM; 8:03-cv-02241-PJM; 8:02-cv-00044-PJM (D. Md. June 20, 2008); Kissi v. Kremen, No. 8:08-cv-00748-PJM (D. Md. June 3, 2008; June 20, 2008). 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 6