Yates v. District of Columbia

Fourth Circuit

Yates v. District of Columbia

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 27, 2005

Docket04-2504

StatusUnpublished

This text of Yates v. District of Columbia (Yates v. District of Columbia) 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

Yates v. District of Columbia, (4th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2504

MELVIN STANLEY YATES, II,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-04- 2845-8-RWT; BK-03-13176; AP-03-1244; AP-03-1218)

Submitted: June 30, 2005 Decided: July 27, 2005

Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles E. Wagner, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Robert J. Spagnoletti, Attorney General, Edward E. Schwab, Deputy Attorney General, James C. McKay, Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney General, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Melvin Stanley Yates, II, appeals from the district

court’s order affirming the determination by the bankruptcy court

that the District of Columbia was not precluded from introducing

evidence of fraudulent conduct by Yates in its civil action to

enforce the Consumer Protection Procedures Act, D.C. Code Ann.

§§ 28-3904, 3909 (2001), against Yates after it had voluntarily

dismissed with prejudice its claim that any debt in its favor

against Yates based on fraud was nondischargeable in Yates’

bankruptcy action. We have reviewed the briefs, the joint

appendix, and the bankruptcy court and district court orders and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. See Yates v. District of Columbia, No.

CA-04-2845-8-RWT (D. Md. filed Nov. 10, 2004; entered Nov. 12,

2004). 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

- 2 -

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