Broadnax v. Homeside Lending, Inc. (In re Broadnax)

Fourth Circuit

Broadnax v. Homeside Lending, Inc. (In re Broadnax)

305 F. App'x 334

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 15, 2004

DocketNo. 03-2104

StatusPublished

This text of 305 F. App'x 334 (Broadnax v. Homeside Lending, Inc. (In re Broadnax)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Broadnax v. Homeside Lending, Inc. (In re Broadnax), 305 F. App'x 334 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Lisa Annette Broadnax appeals from the district court’s order dismissing as interlocutory her appeal from a bankruptcy court order entered on March 18, 2003. Our review of the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Broadnax v. Homeside Lending, Inc., Nos. CA-03-319-2; BK-02-72575-DHA (E.D.Va. Aug. 4, 2003). We deny Broadnax’s motions to supplement the record and for judicial review 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Lisa Annette Broadnax appeals from the district court’s order dismissing as interlocutory her appeal from a bankruptcy court order entered on March 18, 2003. Our review of the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Broadnax v. Homeside Lending, Inc., Nos. CA-03-319-2; BK-02-72575-DHA (E.D.Va. Aug. 4, 2003). We deny Broadnax’s motions to supplement the record and for judicial review 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 F. App'x 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broadnax-v-homeside-lending-inc-in-re-broadnax-ca4-2004.