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)
05-1433•In re: Gary Ivan Terry
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1433
In Re: GARY IVAN TERRY,
Debtor.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GARY IVAN TERRY,
Debtor - Appellant,
versus
SARAH F. SPARROW,
Trustee - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-03-1195-1; BK-01-10059)
Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 5, 2006
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
- 2 -
Gary Ivan Terry, Appellant Pro Se. Sarah Flintom Sparrow, Cynthia
Munk Swindlehurst, TUGGLE, DUGGINS & MESCHAN, PA, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 2 of 3 --
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Gary Ivan Terry seeks to appeal from the district court’s
order dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s orders
denying his motions to review an agency decision, to dismiss the
bankruptcy case, and to remove the bankruptcy trustee. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for
the reasons stated by the district court. See Terry v. Sparrow,
Nos. CA-03-1195-1; BK-01-10059 (M.D.N.C. filed Mar. 30, 2005;
entered Mar. 31, 2005 & Apr. 22, 2005). Additionally, we deny
Terry’s motions for a rehearing of the denial of his motion to
disqualify counsel for the Appellee, for sanctions, for appointment
of counsel, for review under the Administrative Procedures Act of
Appellee’s informal brief, to expedite oral argument, and to
consolidate this appeal with three other pending appeals. 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.
DISMISSED
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.