Case ID: br_345/html/0452-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Stephen Craig CONLEY, Debtor. Thomas W. Olick, Appellant, v. Commercial State Bank; Stephen C. Conley, Appellees.
    No. 05-50583.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided April 11, 2006.
    Thomas W. Olick, Easton, PA, pro se.
    Roy Lee Bell, Odessa, TX, for Commercial State Bank.
    Vivian Lea Borland, Borland & Borland, Midland, TX, for Stephen C. Conley.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The appellant, Thomas Olick, appeals from the judgment of the District Court in this dispute over the ownership and control of a piece of oil producing property located in Texas. Appellant asserts that the Bankruptcy Court improperly denied his motion to amend his complaint under Bankruptcy Rule 7015, which adopts F.R.C.P. Rule 15. Matter of Schwager, 121 F.3d 177, 186 (1997). The appellant argues that the denial of this motion without comment or explanation of the basis for denial was an abuse of discretion. However, the appellant has not provided a record of the hearing at which the motion was denied for this court to review and has made inconsistent statements on this point, arguing before the District Court that “the lower court opined that it would not grant Appellant’s B.R. 7015 Motion because doing so might delay trial against the Appel-lees.” Additionally, while an explanation of the reasons for a denial of a motion to amend is strongly preferred, it is not an abuse of discretion where the reasons for denial are apparent. Mayeaux v. Louisiana Health Serv. and Indem. Co., 376 F.3d 420, 426-427 (5th Cir.2004). Here, the motion to amend the complaint adding new defendants was made five months after the complaint was filed, requested to plead different theories against different parties, and was thus properly denied. Id. at 427-28.

The appellant further contends that default judgments by a Pennsylvania Bankruptcy Court possessed res judicata status as to issues in this case. Res judicata is inapplicable to bankruptcy nondischarge-ability proceedings. In re Pancake, 106 F.3d 1242, 1244 (5th Cir.1997).

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.