Riffin v. Baltimore County, MD (In re Riffin)

Fourth Circuit

Riffin v. Baltimore County, MD (In re Riffin)

521 F. App'x 164

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 10, 2013

DocketNo. 12-2422

StatusPublished

This text of 521 F. App'x 164 (Riffin v. Baltimore County, MD (In re Riffin)) 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

Riffin v. Baltimore County, MD (In re Riffin), 521 F. App'x 164 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Riffin appeals the district court’s orders: (1) dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court for failure to timely file an appellate brief, as required by Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8009, and (2) 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. Riffin v. Baltimore County, MD, No. 1:12-cv-00897-ELH, 2012 WL 5406743 (D.Md. July 26, 2012; Nov. 2, 2012). We deny Riffin’s motion for sanctions and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

James Riffin appeals the district court’s orders: (1) dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court for failure to timely file an appellate brief, as required by Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8009, and (2) 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. Riffin v. Baltimore County, MD, No. 1:12-cv-00897-ELH, 2012 WL 5406743 (D.Md. July 26, 2012; Nov. 2, 2012). We deny Riffin’s motion for sanctions and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

521 F. App'x 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riffin-v-baltimore-county-md-in-re-riffin-ca4-2013.