In Re: PETER PAUL MITRANO v. Rjm Acquisitions LLC

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2044
In Re: PETER PAUL MITRANO,
Debtor.
--------------------------
PETER PAUL MITRANO,
Debtor – Appellant,
v.
RJM ACQUISITIONS LLC; ECAST SETTLEMENT CORPORATION; PRA
RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, LLC; FAIRFAX COUNTY; ASSET
ACCEPTANCE LLC; AMERICAN EXPRESS CENTURION BANK; DENOVUS
CORPORATION LTD; VIRGINIA KELLY,
Creditors – Appellees,
and
ROBERT OGDEN TYLER; W. CLARKSON MCDOW, JR.,
Trustees - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:12-cv-00122-LMB-IDD; 11-14531-RGM)
Submitted: October 15, 2012 Decided: October 18, 2012
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Peter Paul Mitrano, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy F. Loftus, COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Fairfax, Virginia; Linda D. Regenhardt,
BAILEYGARY, PC, Vienna, Virginia; Derek K. Prosser, TYLER,
BARTL, RAMSDELL & COUNTS, PLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Peter Paul Mitrano appeals the district court’s order
affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing without
prejudice his objections to proofs of claim filed by numerous
creditors in his bankruptcy case. The district court also
rejected Mitrano’s challenge to the transfer of venue from the
Southern District of West Virginia to the Eastern District of
Virginia, and warned Mitrano that further frivolous appeals to
that court, including reargument of his challenge to the venue
transfer order, will be subject to sanctions. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. Mitrano v. RJM
Acquisitions LLC, No. 1:12-cv-00122-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va. July 24,
2012). We decline to address Mitrano’s challenge to the
validity of his conviction entered in the District Court for the
District of New Hampshire. We deny Mitrano’s motions to
expedite and for a stay pending appeal. 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 --