In re: Thomas W. Hill

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1785
In Re: THOMAS W. HILL,
Debtor.
-------------------------
THOMAS W. HILL,
Debtor - Appellant,
versus
D. SAMUEL NEILL; BOYD B. MASSAGEE, JR.; ERVIN
W. BAZZLE; MARGARET M. HUNT; JEFFREY P. HUNT;
GARFORD TONY HILL; JEWELL ANNE HILL; WILLIAM
LLOYD GARRISON; BARBARA HILL GARRISON,
Creditors - Appellees,
and
DAVID R. HILLIER,
Trustee.
No. 04-2471
In Re: THOMAS W. HILL,
Debtor.
------------------------

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
THOMAS W. HILL,
Debtor - Appellant,
versus
D. SAMUEL NEILL; BOYD B. MASSAGEE, JR.; ERVIN
W. BAZZLE; MARGARET M. HUNT; JEFFREY P. HUNT;
GARFORD TONY HILL; JEWELL ANNE HILL; WILLIAM
LLOYD GARRISON; BARBARA HILL GARRISON,
Creditors - Appellees,
and
DAVID R. HILLIER,
Trustee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (CA-04-55-1; BK-03-11498)
Submitted: March 30, 2005 Decided: April 28, 2005
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William E. Loose, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. David
G. Gray, Jr., WESTALL, GRAY, CONNOLLY & DAVIS, P.A., Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellees; David R. Hillier, GUM, HILLIER &
McCROSKEY, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina, for Trustee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
In No. 04-1785, Thomas W. Hill appeals from the district
court’s order dismissing as moot his appeal from the bankruptcy
court’s order denying his motion to dismiss an involuntary
Chapter 7 petition filed against him by the Appellees. In No. 04-
2471, Hill appeals from the district court’s order that denied his
motion to reconsider a prior order and dismissed as untimely his
appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order for relief in the
underlying bankruptcy proceeding. Our review of the record
included on appeal, the opinions of the courts below, and the
parties’ briefs discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we
grant the Appellees’ motion to consolidate these appeals and affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hill v. Neill
(in re Hill), Nos. CA-04-55-1; BK-03-11498 (W.D.N.C. filed June 10,
2004 & entered June 15, 2004; filed Oct. 12, 2004 & entered Oct.
14, 2004). We deny Hill’s motion for summary remand and 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 --