Richardson v. North Carolina State Education Assistance Authority

Fourth Circuit

Richardson v. North Carolina State Education Assistance Authority

326 F. App'x 173

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 5, 2009

DocketNo. 09-1075

StatusPublished

This text of 326 F. App'x 173 (Richardson v. North Carolina State Education Assistance Authority) 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

Richardson v. North Carolina State Education Assistance Authority, 326 F. App'x 173 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lorenzo Dominic Richardson appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders upholding the validity of Richardson’s debt to Appel-lee, and determining that the debt was not dischargeable in Richardson’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Richardson v. The North Carolina State Education Assistance Authority, 5:08-ev-00557-FL (E.D.N.C. Nov. 24, 2008). 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lorenzo Dominic Richardson appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders upholding the validity of Richardson’s debt to Appel-lee, and determining that the debt was not dischargeable in Richardson’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Richardson v. The North Carolina State Education Assistance Authority, 5:08-ev-00557-FL (E.D.N.C. Nov. 24, 2008). 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)

326 F. App'x 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-north-carolina-state-education-assistance-authority-ca4-2009.