Richard Meabon v. R. Johnson
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00398-RJC,10-30455,12-03218 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-1780]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
In re: RICHARD P. MEABON; EVELYN L. MEABON
-----------------------------RICHARD P. MEABON,
Debtor – Appellant,
R. KEITH JOHNSON,
Trustee – Appellee,
EVELYN L. MEABON,
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cv-00398-RJC; 10-30455; 1203218)
Submitted: September 7, 2017
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Decided: September 28, 2017
Pg: 2 of 3
Kurt Friedrich Hausler, HAUSLER LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellant. R. Keith Johnson, Stanley, North Carolina; John C. Woodman, SODOMA
LAW, P.C., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 3 of 3
In 2010, Richard P. Meabon filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief and received a
discharge. However, the bankruptcy court revoked Meabon’s discharge in 2014 because
Meabon improperly failed to disclose certain trust interests on his Chapter 7 petition.
Meabon appealed the revocation order to the district court, which dismissed his appeal as
frivolous. In 2015, Meabon filed a Rule 60(b) motion in bankruptcy court seeking relief
from the order revoking his discharge. The bankruptcy court denied his motion, and
Meabon appealed to the district court. The district court again entered an order dismissing
the appeal as frivolous. Meabon now appeals the district court’s order dismissing his
appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order denying his Rule 60(b) motion.
Meabon asserts that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his appeal
as frivolous. After reviewing the record and the district court’s opinion, we find the
district court did not abuse its discretion or commit other reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. See Meabon v.
Johnson, No. 3:15-cv-00398-RJC (W.D.N.C. June 6, 2016). 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.
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?