Coleman v. Simpson
This text of Coleman v. Simpson (Coleman v. Simpson) 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.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-2186
In Re: MONICA LYNN COLEMAN; In Re: COLEMAN CRATEN, L.L.C., Debtors.
MONICA LYNN COLEMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LORI SIMPSON, Trustee,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-00- 3788-MJG, BK-99-56239, AP-99-5665-SD, AP-99-5667-SD)
No. 01-2374
In Re: MONICA LYNN COLEMAN,
Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-3788-MJG)
Submitted: March 21, 2002 Decided: March 27, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
No. 01-2186 affirmed and No. 01-2374 petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Monica Lynn Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Gerald Hroblak, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
2 PER CURIAM:
In No. 01-2186, Monica Coleman appeals from the district
court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying relief
on her claims against the Trustee in the underlying bankruptcy
proceeding. Our review of the record and the opinions below
discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. Coleman v. Simpson, Nos. CA-00-
3788-MJG; BK-99-56239; AP-99-5665-SD; AP-99-5667-SD (D. Md. Sept.
13, 2001). In No. 01-2374, Coleman petitions for a writ of
mandamus directing the district court to forward to this court the
designated portions of the bankruptcy court record. Because the
record has since been received by this court, we deny the petition
for a writ of mandamus as moot. 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.
No. 01-2186 - AFFIRMED
No. 01-2374 - PETITION DENIED
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Coleman v. Simpson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-simpson-ca4-2002.