Walker v. Reeves

Fourth Circuit

Walker v. Reeves

489 F. App'x 714

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 26, 2012

DocketNo. 12-1900

StatusPublished

This text of 489 F. App'x 714 (Walker v. Reeves) 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

Walker v. Reeves, 489 F. App'x 714 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Elizabeth Anne Reeves appeals the district court’s orders: (1) dismissing her appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order for failure to comply with Bankr.R. 8009; and (2) denying her motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pau-peris, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Reeves v. United States Trustee, Nos. 8:12-cv-00918-AW; 11-19737; 11-20840; 11-26340; 12-11149 (D. Md. June 6, 2012; June 29, 2012). 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Elizabeth Anne Reeves appeals the district court’s orders: (1) dismissing her appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order for failure to comply with Bankr.R. 8009; and (2) denying her motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pau-peris, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Reeves v. United States Trustee, Nos. 8:12-cv-00918-AW; 11-19737; 11-20840; 11-26340; 12-11149 (D. Md. June 6, 2012; June 29, 2012). 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)

489 F. App'x 714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-reeves-ca4-2012.