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)
02-1165•In re: Stanley James Development Corporation
02-1165Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJul 23, 2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1165
In Re: STANLEY JAMES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Debtor.
JAMES H. KING,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
LINDA L. KING; WENDY KING,
Plaintiffs,
versus
GERARD RICHARD VETTER,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-01-
3411-AMD, BK-98-6-7627-SD, AP-01-5062-SD)
Submitted: July 18, 2002 Decided: July 23, 2002
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
James H. King, Appellant Pro Se. Gerard Richard Vetter, GOLDMAN &
VETTER, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James King appeals from the district court’s order affirming
the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of his action in which he sought
recovery of damages from counsel for the bankruptcy trustee. We
have reviewed the record and the opinions of the district court and
the bankruptcy court and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See King v. Vetter,
Nos. CA-01-3411-AMD; BK-98-6-7627-SD; AP-01-5062-SD (D. Md. Jan.
28, 2002). 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.