Mason v. Sowell

96 F. App'x 131
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedApril 30, 2004
Docket03-1909
StatusUnpublished

This text of 96 F. App'x 131 (Mason v. Sowell) 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
Mason v. Sowell, 96 F. App'x 131 (4th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1909

E. LOWELL MASON,

Debtor - Appellant,

versus

SUSAN L. SOWELL,

Trustee - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-03-234-3; CA-03-271-3; BK-02-33458; AP-03- 3026)

Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: April 30, 2004

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

E. Lowell Mason, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Leigh Sowell, KAHEN, MUCHIN, ZAVIS & ROSENMAN, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

E. Lowell Mason appeals from the district court’s order

dismissing as interlocutory his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s

orders: (1) finding him in civil contempt and stating how he may

purge that contempt; (2) denying his motion to disqualify the

bankruptcy court judge and setting a hearing on other pending

motions; and (3) denying his motion to dismiss an adversary

proceeding against him. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. See Mason v. Sowell, Nos. CA-03-234-3, BK-02-

33458, AP-03-3026 (W.D.N.C. filed July 18, 2003, entered July 23,

2003; filed Aug. 4, 2003, entered Aug. 6, 2003). We deny Mason’s

motion for clarification of the lower courts’ jurisdiction 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

- 2 -

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
96 F. App'x 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mason-v-sowell-ca4-2004.