The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
01-2408•In re: Gary L. Detemple
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-2408
In Re: GARY L. DETEMPLE,
Debtor.
GARY L. DETEMPLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MARK D. PANEPINTO, successor to United
National Bank, successor to Fed One Bank;
UNITED NATIONAL BANK; WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF TAX AND REVENUE; B. K. WATTS, Unit Manager,
Internal Auditing Division, in his individual
capacity; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE;
RITA R. VALDRINI, in her individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
DEBRA A. WERTMAN, Trustee,
Trustee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-00-63-5, BK-99-5086)
Submitted: July 31, 2002 Decided: August 23, 2002
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary L. DeTemple, Appellant Pro Se. Mark D. Panepinto, Wheeling,
West Virginia; George James Anetakis, Weirton, West Virginia; David
L. Bissett, Joseph M. Palmer, B. K. Watts, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA,
Charleston, West Virginia; Rita R. Valdrini, Assistant United
States Attorney, Helen Campbell Altmeyer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gary L. DeTemple appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion to reconsider a prior order affirming the bankruptcy
court’s order dismissing his complaint. Our review of the record
and the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
DeTemple v. Panepinto, Nos. CA-00-63-5; BK-99-5086 (N.D.W. Va. Oct.
9, 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.