Case ID: f-appx_132/html/0424-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael R. SHEMONSKY, Appellant, v. RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION.
    No. 04-4649.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) May 18, 2005.
    Decided May 31, 2005.
    
      Michael R. Shemonsky, Weatherly, PA, Pro se.
    Before NYGAARD, VAN ANTWERPEN and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Michael Shemonsky appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his “Motion for 60(b) Judicial Fraud by the Court of Appeals” and his “Motion to Discover Ernst & Young, LLP Accounting Files.” In his Rule 60(b) motion, Shemonsky requested the return of the assets of Atlantic Financial Federal and monetary damages. In the discovery motion, Shemonsky sought the accounting files of Atlantic Financial Federal held by Ernst & Young. The District Court dismissed the motions because it determined Shemonsky had been enjoined from filing pleadings in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and had not received approval for the filing of the motions. The District Court also ordered that no further pleadings be docketed in the case without prior approval by the Court. Shemonsky filed a timely notice of appeal and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

While the District Court in its February 22,1993 order gave Shemonsky thirty days to show cause why he should not be enjoined, it appears from the docket and the record that the District Court never subsequently entered an injunction against Shemonsky. However, we may affirm the District Court on any ground supported by the record. Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir.1999). Shemonsky did not set forth any adequate basis for the relief that he sought in the motions.

Because the instant motions are clearly without merit, we will affirm the District Court’s order. 
      
      . Although the title of the motion implies fraud by this Court, because Shemonsky does not make any specific allegations of fraud and none of the members of this panel participated in the 1990 appeal he submitted to support the motion, we decline to recuse ourselves.