Roberts v. Creighton

Fourth Circuit

Roberts v. Creighton

332 F. App'x 8

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 1, 2009

DocketNo. 09-1381

StatusPublished

This text of 332 F. App'x 8 (Roberts v. Creighton) 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

Roberts v. Creighton, 332 F. App'x 8 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Hugh Roberts appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders denying his motion to reopen his bankruptcy case and to remove a proceeding from state court. We have reviewed the records and decisions of the bankruptcy court and the district court and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Roberts v. Creighton, Nos. 1:08-cv-01775-BEL; BK-95-51301; AP-08-00233 (D.Md. Feb. 27, 2009). 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

David Hugh Roberts appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders denying his motion to reopen his bankruptcy case and to remove a proceeding from state court. We have reviewed the records and decisions of the bankruptcy court and the district court and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Roberts v. Creighton, Nos. 1:08-cv-01775-BEL; BK-95-51301; AP-08-00233 (D.Md. Feb. 27, 2009). 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)

332 F. App'x 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-creighton-ca4-2009.