Sullivan v. Biberstein

Fourth Circuit

Sullivan v. Biberstein

610 F. App'x 286

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 27, 2015

DocketNo. 15-1430

StatusPublished

This text of 610 F. App'x 286 (Sullivan v. Biberstein) 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

Sullivan v. Biberstein, 610 F. App'x 286 (4th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James D. Sullivan appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and granting the Government’s petition to enforce an [287]*287Internal Revenue Service third party summons and denying Sullivan’s motions to quash the summons and stay the proceedings. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Biberstein, No. 7:14-cv-00175-BO, 2015 WL 1387931 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 25, 2015). We 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.

DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James D. Sullivan appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and granting the Government’s petition to enforce an [287]*287Internal Revenue Service third party summons and denying Sullivan’s motions to quash the summons and stay the proceedings. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Biberstein, No. 7:14-cv-00175-BO, 2015 WL 1387931 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 25, 2015). We 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.

DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

610 F. App'x 286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-biberstein-ca4-2015.