In re Pawlak

Fourth Circuit

In re Pawlak

85 F. App'x 890

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 15, 2004

DocketNo. 03-1653

StatusPublished

This text of 85 F. App'x 890 (In re Pawlak) 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

In re Pawlak, 85 F. App'x 890 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

George E. McDermott appeals from the district court’s orders denying his motion to intervene in this action and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See In re Pawlak, No. MISC-03-41-L (D.Md. filed Apr. 22, 2003; entered Apr. 23, 2003 & filed May 19, 2003; entered May 20, 2003). We deny McDermott’s motions to amend the record on appeal, to supplement the record, to reinstate the formal briefing schedule, and to correct the record to reflect that the case is on a formal briefing schedule. Additionally, because Elizabeth Pawlak is not a party to this appeal, we deny her motions for a briefing schedule and for extensions of time to file a brief. 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

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

PER CURIAM.

George E. McDermott appeals from the district court’s orders denying his motion to intervene in this action and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See In re Pawlak, No. MISC-03-41-L (D.Md. filed Apr. 22, 2003; entered Apr. 23, 2003 & filed May 19, 2003; entered May 20, 2003). We deny McDermott’s motions to amend the record on appeal, to supplement the record, to reinstate the formal briefing schedule, and to correct the record to reflect that the case is on a formal briefing schedule. Additionally, because Elizabeth Pawlak is not a party to this appeal, we deny her motions for a briefing schedule and for extensions of time to file a brief. 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 F. App'x 890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-pawlak-ca4-2004.