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)
12-1257•In re: JAMES RIFFIN v. Patapsco Bank
12-1257Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 1, 2012
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1257
In re: JAMES RIFFIN,
Debtor,
-----------------------------------
JAMES RIFFIN,
Debtor – Appellant,
v.
PATAPSCO BANK
Creditor – Appellee,
MARK J. FRIEDMAN
Trustee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:11-cv-03203-CCB)
Submitted: July 26, 2012 Decided: August 1, 2012
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
James Riffin, Appellant Pro Se. Robert S. Glushakow, NOLAN,
PLUMHOFF & WILLIAMS, CHARTERED, Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
James Riffin appeals the district court’s orders: (1)
granting the Appellee’s unopposed motion to dismiss Riffin’s
appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order; and (2) denying his
motion for reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. Riffin v. Patapsco
Bank (In re James Riffin), No. 1:11-cv-03203-CCB (D. Md.
Nov. 10, 2011; Jan. 25, 2012). 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.