Janice Grenadier v. Thomas Gorman ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1540 JANICE WOLK GRENADIER, Debtor - Appellant, v. THOMAS PATRICK GORMAN, Trustee - Appellee, and JUDY A. ROBBINS, US Trustee, Trustee. No. 17-1573 GEORGE EDWARD MCDERMOTT, Appellant. ________________________________ JANICE WOLK GRENADIER, Debtor, JUDY A. ROBBINS, US Trustee; THOMAS PATRICK GORMAN, Trustees. No. 17-1710 JANICE WOLK GRENADIER, a/k/a J. W. Grenadier, a/k/a Janice Grenadier, Debtor - Appellant, v. ILONA ELY FREEDMAN GRENADIER HECKMAN, Defendant - Appellee, v. JUDY A. ROBBINS; THOMAS PATRICK GORMAN, Trustees. No. 17-1737 JANICE WOLK GRENADIER, Debtor - Appellant, v. THOMAS PATRICK GORMAN, Trustee - Appellee, and JUDY A. ROBBINS, US Trustee, Trustee. 2 Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-01461-CMH-IDD); Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:16-cv-01448-GBL-TCB) Submitted: November 16, 2017 Decided: November 20, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Janice Wolk Grenadier, George Edward McDermott, Appellants Pro Se. Thomas Patrick Gorman, OFFICE OF THE CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE, Alexandria, Virginia; Andrea L. Moseley, DIMUROGINSBERG, PC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 3 PER CURIAM: Janice Wolk Grenadier and George Edward McDermott appeal the district court’s orders dismissing Grenadier’s bankruptcy appeals and denying McDermott’s motions to intervene and to confirm. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeals for the reasons stated by the district court. Grenadier v. Gorman, No. 1:16-cv-01461-CMH-IDD (E.D. Va. Apr. 3 & May 5, 2017); McDermott, No. 1:16-cv-01461-CMH-IDD (E.D. Va. Apr. 24, 2017); Grenadier v. Heckman, No. 1:16-cv-01448-GBL-TCB (E.D. Va. May 10, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 4