Pernell Wilkins v. Cynthia S. Wilkins

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1627
PERNELL WILKINS; SOLLIE WILKINS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
CYNTHIA S. WILKINS,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
MICHAEL D. WILKINS,
Party in Interest,
and
SHERMAN B. LUBMAN,
Trustee.
No. 01-1851
PERNELL WILKINS; SOLLIE WILKINS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
and

-- 1 of 3 --

2
MICHAEL D. WILKINS,
Party in Interest - Appellant,
versus
CYNTHIA S. WILKINS,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
SHERMAN B. LUBMAN,
Trustee - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CA-98-135, BK-95-33189)
Submitted: September 25, 2001 Decided: October 23, 2001
Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pernell Wilkins, Sollie Wilkins, Michael D. Wilkins, Appellants Pro
Se. Cynthia S. Wilkins, Appellee Pro Se. Neil Orion Reid, Rich-
mond, Virginia; Jeffrey Hamilton Geiger, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS &
MILLER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In appeal No. 01-1627, Sollie and Pernell Wilkins appeal from
the district court’s orders affirming the bankruptcy court’s order
dismissing their Adversary Proceeding for failure to prosecute and
denying their motion for a rehearing. In appeal No. 01-1851,
Michael, Sollie, and Pernell Wilkins appeal from the district
court’s order imposing sanctions and imposing a prefiling injunc-
tion. We have reviewed the records in these appeals and the dis-
trict court’s opinion and orders and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we deny Cynthia Wilkins’ motion for appointment of
counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Wilkins
v. Wilkins, Nos. CA-98-135; BK-95-33189 (E.D. Va. Mar. 23, 2001,
Apr. 4, 2001 & May 25, 2001). 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

-- 3 of 3 --