Roberts v. Roberts

Fourth Circuit

Roberts v. Roberts

639 F. App'x 951

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided May 18, 2016·No. No. 15-2019·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mary Sue Roberts appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint filed in her Chapter 13 proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record included on appeal, as well as the parties’ briefs, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Roberts v. Roberts, No. 5:15-cv-02099 (S.D.W.Va. Aug. 5, 2015). We deny Appellant’s motion for judicial review. 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Mary Sue Roberts appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint filed in her Chapter 13 proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record included on appeal, as well as the parties’ briefs, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Roberts v. Roberts, No. 5:15-cv-02099 (S.D.W.Va. Aug. 5, 2015). We deny Appellant’s motion for judicial review. 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.

Roberts v. Roberts, 639 F. App'x 951 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

639 F. App'x 951 (Roberts v. Roberts) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.