2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-31-2005

Shemonsky v. Resolution Trust

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 04-4649

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Shemonsky v. Resolution Trust" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1111.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1111
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 04-4649

________________

MICHAEL R. SHEMONSKY,

 Appellant

 v.

RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION

____________________________________

On Appeal From the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 93-cv-0004)

District Judge: Honorable Bruce W. Kauffman

_______________________________________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

May 18, 2005

Before: NYGAARD, VAN ANTWERPEN AND STAPLETON, CIRCUIT JUDGES

(Filed May 31, 2005 )

_______________________

OPINION

_______________________
 Although the title of the motion implies fraud by this Court, because Shemonsky 1

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.

2

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 & 1

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.
3

Because the instant motions are clearly without merit, we will affirm the District

Court’s order.