Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Timothy Dials v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 18-1252 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 18-1252 Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 03, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1252 TIMOTHY HUGH DIALS, Debtor - Appellant, v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A.; REISENFELD & ASSOCIATES; CHRISTOPHER DAWSON, Defendants - Appellees, and THOMAS H. FLUHARTY; UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, Trustees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (2:17-cv-04132) Submitted: November 29, 2018 Decided: December 3, 2018 Before DUNCAN and KEEN
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1252 TIMOTHY HUGH DIALS, Debtor - Appellant, v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A.; REISENFELD & ASSOCIATES; CHRISTOPHER DAWSON, Defendants - Appellees, and THOMAS H. FLUHARTY; UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, Trustees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (2:17-cv-04132) Submitted: November 29, 2018 Decided: December 3, 2018 Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Hugh Dials, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Michael Williamson, BLANK ROME LLP, Washington, D.C.; Gregory Alan Stout, REISENFELD & ASSOCIATES LPA LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Timothy Hugh Dials appeals the district court’s order dismissing as frivolous his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order granting HSBC Bank’s motion for in rem relief from the automatic stay and dismissing Dials’ claims in the underlying adversary proceeding. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Dials v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., No. 2:17-cv-04132 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 28, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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