Charles Haver v. Dariush Jahanian

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-00723-AJT-IDD,1:08-bk-10030,1:10-ap-1165 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998949291].. [11-2330]

Appeal: 11-2330

Doc: 30

Filed: 10/01/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2330

In re:

DARIUSH JAHANIAN,
Debtor,

-----------------------------CHARLES BARRETT HAVER; ELAINE HAVER;
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
DARIUSH JAHANIAN,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Anthony John Trenga,
District Judge. (1:11-cv-00723-AJT-IDD; 1:08-bk-10030; 1:10-ap1165)

Submitted:

September 27, 2012

Decided:

October 1, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ernest P. Francis, ERNEST P. FRANCIS, LTD., Arlington, Virginia,
for Appellants.
James M. Stewart, Jr., George LeRoy Moran,
MORAN MONTFORT, PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-2330

Doc: 30

Filed: 10/01/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Charles Barrett Haver and Elaine Haver appeal from the
district court’s order:

(1) affirming the magistrate judge’s

order striking their brief as untimely filed and because the
magistrate judge had not ruled on their motions for an extension
of time; and (2) dismissing their appeal from the bankruptcy
court’s determination that Dariush Jahanian’s liability to them
is dischargeable in his bankruptcy case.

The Havers’ appeal was

dismissed after they failed to timely file their appeal brief
and failed to file their motion for an extension of time prior
See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8006.

to the due date for the brief.

We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find
no reversible error and no abuse of discretion.

See Fed. R.

Bankr. P. 8001(a); In re SPR Corp., 45 F.3d 70, 74 (4th Cir.
1995); In re Serra Builders, Inc., 970 F.2d 1309, 1311 (4th Cir.
1992).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

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

2