Case ID: f-appx_45/html/0251-01.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

In Re Muzio ROBERTO; In Re Mary K. Roberto, Debtors. Muzio ROBERTO; Mary K. Roberto, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Joseph NAPOLI; Marion Napoli, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 02-1247.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 29, 2002.
    Decided Sept. 4, 2002.
    Muzio Roberto, Mary K. Roberto, Appellants Pro Se. Thomas Louis Heeney, Law Office of Thomas L. Heeney, Chartered, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Muzio Roberto and Mary K. Roberto appeal from the district court’s order denying their motion to reconsider a prior order dismissing their appeal from the bankruptcy court. Our review of the record discloses no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Roberto v. Napoli, Nos. CA-00-3505-AW; BK-98-12440-PM (D. Md. Jan. 19, 2001 & Jan. 25, 2002). In light of this disposition, we deny the Appellees’ motion for summary dismissal. We deny the Robertos’ motion for 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.