Sieber v. Lipp

Fourth Circuit

Sieber v. Lipp

466 F. App'x 290

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 21, 2012

DocketNo. 11-2208

StatusPublished

This text of 466 F. App'x 290 (Sieber v. Lipp) 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

Sieber v. Lipp, 466 F. App'x 290 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Stephen Sieber, Christopher Petito, and Ronald Williams appeal from the district court’s orders dismissing their action in which they sought to enjoin District Court Judge Titus and Bankruptcy Court Judge Lipp from presiding over any proceedings in which they are involved, and denying their motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sieber v. Lipp, No. 8:11-cv-02656-JFM (D. Md. Oct. 7, 2011 & Oct. 14, 2011). We deny the Appellants’ motion for recusal of Judges Titus and Lipp and deny the motion to consolidate this case with Appeal No. 11-1857. 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

PER CURIAM:

Stephen Sieber, Christopher Petito, and Ronald Williams appeal from the district court’s orders dismissing their action in which they sought to enjoin District Court Judge Titus and Bankruptcy Court Judge Lipp from presiding over any proceedings in which they are involved, and denying their motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sieber v. Lipp, No. 8:11-cv-02656-JFM (D. Md. Oct. 7, 2011 & Oct. 14, 2011). We deny the Appellants’ motion for recusal of Judges Titus and Lipp and deny the motion to consolidate this case with Appeal No. 11-1857. 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)

466 F. App'x 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sieber-v-lipp-ca4-2012.