Case ID: f-appx_8/html/0229-02.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

In re James Michael PIERSON, Debtor. Thomas H. Mccorkle; Jane Ann McCorkle; J.C. McCorkle, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James Michael Pierson, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 01-1269.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 27, 2001.
    Decided May 4, 2001.
    Thomas H. McCorkle, Jane Ann McCorkle, J.C. McCorkle, pro se.
    Gregory Howard Schillace, McNeer, Highland, McMunn & Varner, L.C., Clarksburg, WV, for appellee.
    Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Thomas H. MeCorkle, Jane Ann McCorkle, and J.C. MeCorkle appeal the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing their complaint for failure to effect service of process as required by Fed.R.Bankr.7004; Fed. R.Civ.P. 4(m). Our review of the record and the opinions below discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. McCorkle v. Pierson, Nos. CA-00-437; BK-93-20367; AP-99-36 (S.D .W.Va. Sept. 13, 2000). The Appellants have filed a Motion for Order Permitting Reply Brief. Because they have not proffered the reply brief, and because the allegations in the motion do not warrant relief, we deny the motion. See 4th Cir.R. 28(b). 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.