2011 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

8-3-2011 

# I n r e: M ich a el R . S he monsky

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 11-1227

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2011 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" I n r e: M ich a e l R . S he mon sk y " (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 709. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011/709

### 1

CLD - 231 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________ No. 11

- 1227

____________ In Re: MICHAEL SHEMONSKY, Appellant.

__________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. No. 09

- cv - 00197) District Judge: John E. Jones, III

__________________________________ Submitted for Possible or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

July 8, 2011 Before: REN DELL, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 3, 2011 )

____________ OPINION

____________
PER CURIAM Appellant Michael R. Shemonsky initially sought to reopen a bankruptcy case that had been di smissed

. After a hearing on December 17, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court denied his motion to reopen. Shemonsky appealed that order to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In an order entered on March 13, 2009,
t he Distri ct Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court ’ s order and summarily denied

### 2

Shemonsky ’ s appeal because he had failed to raise any issue of merit

. Upon review of the record, including the transcript of the hearing held on December 17, 2008, we agree d that Shemonsk y raised no issue of arguable merit and summarily affirm ed the judgment of the Distri ct Court. See In re: Shemonsky , 331 Fed. Appx. 104 (3d Cir. 2009). At issue in the instant appeal, Shemonsky filed a motion in the district court, which he based on Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. Pro. In an order entered on January 6, 2011, the District Court denied the motion. The court noted that Shemonsky was essentially arguing that United States Bankruptcy Judge John J. Thomas could not preside over the underlying bankru ptcy case because he is not a judge appointed under Article III of the United States Constitution. The District Court Judge denied Shemonsky’s Rule 60 motion, noting that Judge Thomas was appointed pursuant to Article I of the United States Constitution, and, as such, he has full authority and jurisdiction to preside over bankruptcy matters, including Shemonsky’s bankruptcy matter. Shemonsky filed a timely motion for reconsideration, in which he argued that federal district judges are “tyrannical,” and J udge Thomas is discriminated against because he does not get equal pay. The District Court denied the motion for reconsideration in an order entered on January 12, 2011, observing that Shemonsky was wasting the court’s time. Shemonsky appeals. Our Clerk advised him that we might act summarily to dispose of the appeal. In addition to submitting numerous documents in support of his appeal, Shemonsky has filed several motions, all of them plainly lacking in merit.

### 3

Generally, t he District Court ha s jurisdi ction to review the Bankruptcy Court ’ s order s pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a), and we have jurisdiction to review the District Court ’ s order under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) and § 1291. We will summarily affirm the order of the District Court because no substantial question is presented by this appeal, Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. We are in complete agreement with the District Court ’ s analysis

. A s the District Court concluded, Congress, in reliance upon power expressly granted to it by Article I, § 8, cl. 4 of the United States Constitution, has authorized bankruptcy judges like Judge Thomas to conduct core bankruptcy proceedings. Bankruptcy judges do not have Article III status, Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. , 458 U.S. 50, 61 (1982) , and Judge Thomas need not be an Article III judge to preside over Shemonsky’s cases. See generally Phar

- Mor, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand , 22 F. 3d 1228, 1234

- 35 (3d Cir. 1994) (discussing the distinction between core and non

- cor e proceedings). For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm the order s of the District Court denying Shemonsky’s “Rule 60(b)” motion and motion for reconsideration. Shemonsky’s motions on appeal to supplement the record under Fed. R. App. Pro. 10( e); to seize, etc.; and to transfer his bankruptcy cases to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania all are denied.