Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Marvin v. Marvin, 09-1187 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-1187 Visitors: 2
Filed: Sep. 01, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1187 IN RE: BRIAN M. MARVIN, Debtor, - BRIAN M. MARVIN, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. VICKIE MARVIN; FRANK GEORGE UVANNI, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-00695-RLW; 08-03071-KRH) _ Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 1, 2009 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Cir
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1187 IN RE: BRIAN M. MARVIN, Debtor, ------------------------------------ BRIAN M. MARVIN, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. VICKIE MARVIN; FRANK GEORGE UVANNI, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-00695-RLW; 08-03071-KRH) _______________ Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 1, 2009 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished by per curiam opinion. Brian M. Marvin, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Allen Canfield, Paul McCourt Curley, CANFIELD, BAER, HELLER & JOHNSTON, LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Frank George Uvanni, UVANNI & ASSOCIATES, Ashland, Virginia; William Crewshaw Parkinson, Jr., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Brian Marvin appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing his complaint in which he sought a determination that his debt for attorney fees ordered in a state court proceeding was dischargeable in his bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy court dismissed the complaint based on res judicata because the state court had determined that the debt was a domestic support obligation and therefore not dischargeable. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Marvin v. Marvin, Nos. 3:08-cv-00695-RLW; 08-03071-KRH (E.D. Va. Jan. 21, 2009). 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 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