Jonathan Loy v. Jeremiah O'Sullivan

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999067679-2] in 13-1358 Originating case number: 4:12-cv-00091-RAJ-LRL,09-51379-FJS,09-05034,07-51040-FJS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999167927].. [13-1237, 13-1247, 13-1248, 13-1358]

Download PDF
Jonathan Loy v. Jeremiah O'Sullivan Appeal: 13-1237 Doc: 17 Filed: 08/07/2013 Pg: 1 of 5 Doc. 0 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1237 In Re: JONATHAN A. LOY, Debtor. ---------------------JONATHAN A. LOY, Debtor – Appellant, v. JEREMIAH ANTHONY O’SULLIVAN, as Trustee and Receiver for the bankrupt Jonathan A. Loy, Trustee – Appellee, and W. CLARKSON MCDOW, JR., U.S. Trustee, Trustee. No. 13-1247 In Re: JONATHAN A. LOY, Debtor. ---------------------JONATHAN A. LOY, Debtor – Appellant, Dockets.Justia.com Appeal: 13-1237 Doc: 17 Filed: 08/07/2013 Pg: 2 of 5 v. JEREMIAH ANTHONY O’SULLIVAN, as Trustee and Receiver for the bankrupt Jonathan A. Loy, Trustee – Appellee, and W. CLARKSON MCDOW, JR., U.S. Trustee, Trustee. No. 13-1248 In Re: JONATHAN A. LOY, Debtor. ---------------------JONATHAN A. LOY, Debtor – Appellant, v. JEREMIAH ANTHONY O’SULLIVAN, as Trustee and Receiver for the bankrupt Jonathan A. Loy; U.S. TRUSTEE, Trustees - Appellees. No. 13-1358 In Re: JONATHAN A. LOY, Debtor. ---------------------- 2 Appeal: 13-1237 Doc: 17 Filed: 08/07/2013 Pg: 3 of 5 JEREMIAH ANTHONY O’SULLIVAN, as Trustee and Receiver for the Bankrupt Jonathan A. Loy, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JONATHAN A. LOY, Defendant – Appellant, and SUSAN J. LOY; JOSEPH L. R. PINARD; LEO JON PERK; TOM C. SMITH, JR. Defendants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:12-cv-00091-RAJ-LRL; 4:12-cv-00090-RAJ-DEM; 4:12-cv-00115-RAJ-TEM; 4:12-cv-00151-RAJ-TEM; 09-51379-FJS; 0905034-FJS) Submitted: July 31, 2013 Decided: August 7, 2013 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan A. Loy, Appellant Pro Se. James Robertson Clarke, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Norfolk, Virginia; Douglas Michael Foley, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 3 Appeal: 13-1237 Doc: 17 Filed: 08/07/2013 Pg: 4 of 5 PER CURIAM: In Nos. 13-1237 and 13-1247, Jonathan Loy appeals the district court’s orders affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders denying his motion to revoke recognition of a foreign bankruptcy proceeding, 11 U.S.C. § 1517(d) (2006). In No. 13-1248, Loy appeals the district court’s order dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the underlying Chapter 7 proceeding. Appeal No. 13-1358 is Loy’s appeal from the district court’s order adopting the bankruptcy court’s report and recommendation to grant summary judgment in favor of Jeremiah bankruptcy judgment O’Sullivan, proceeding, that two on the his transfers of trustee in Loy’s claim seeking a real property were English declaratory void ab initio, and striking Susan Loy’s affirmative defense in which she attempted to assert an ownership interest in the property. We have thoroughly reviewed the record on appeal as well as the parties’ briefs and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Loy’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm all appeals on O’Sullivan, the reasoning of the courts Nos. 4:12-cv-00091-RAJ-LRL; below. Loy v. 4:12-cv-00090-RAJ-DEM; 4:12-cv-00115-RAJ-TEM; 4:12-cv-00151-RAJ-TEM (E.D. Va. Jan. 22, 2013; Feb. 12, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 4 Appeal: 13-1237 Doc: 17 materials before Filed: 08/07/2013 this court Pg: 5 of 5 and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?