DLD-206 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1701

___________

IN RE: MICHAEL R. SHEMONSKY,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Nos. 10-cv-00260 and 10-cv-00261)

District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

June 9, 2011

Before: BARRY, FISHER and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: July 5, 2011)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Pro se appellant, Michael Shemonsky, seeks review of the District Court=s order 

dismissing his appeals from two post-judgment orders issued by the Bankruptcy Court. 

Upon consideration of the record, we conclude that the District Court properly affirmed 

the orders of the Bankruptcy Court and denied Shemonsky’s additional motions as moot. 
2

Therefore, because the appeal presents no arguable issues of fact or law, we will dismiss 

it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B), and we do so with little discussion.

 It appears that Shemonsky filed a petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy 

Code, which was dismissed by the Bankruptcy Court on August 29, 2007. See In re 

Shemonsky, M.D. Pa. Bankr. No. 07-bk-50374. The District Court affirmed that 

decision, see M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 07-cv-01885, and we affirmed the District Court’s 

judgment on September 18, 2008. See C.A. No. 07-4499. Shemonsky thereafter filed a 

motion to reinstate his bankruptcy proceedings. The Bankruptcy Court denied that 

request, the District Court again affirmed that decision, see M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 09-cv00170, and Shemonsky’s appeal in this Court was procedurally terminated. See C.A. No. 

09-3582.

Undeterred, Shemonsky returned to the Bankruptcy Court and filed several postdecision type motions, including a “Motion to Produce Summonses on No. 90-180” and a 

“Sealed Motion to Produce Wiretap Order and Mail Cover Order.” In two separate 

orders issued on November 17, 2009, the Bankruptcy Court denied the motions after 

concluding that it was without jurisdiction over Shemonsky’s civil action docketed at 

Shemonsky v. Office of Thrift Supervision, et al., M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 90-cv-00180. 

Shemonsky sought review in the District Court. After noting that Shemonsky failed to so 

much as even raise an allegation of error with respect to the Bankruptcy Court’s 
3

disposition of the motions, the District Court affirmed that court’s orders and dismissed 

Shemonsky’s remaining motions as moot. This timely appeal followed.1

The District Court had jurisdiction to review the Bankruptcy Court=s orders

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) & 1291. 2 Our review of the District Court=s 

determination is plenary. See Kool, Mann, Coffee & Co. v. Coffey, 300 F.3d 340, 353 

(3d Cir. 2002). Upon review of the record, we conclude that Shemonsky=s appeal must 

be dismissed. As properly noted by the District Court, Shemonsky fails to offer any 

support for his challenge to the Bankruptcy Court’s determination that it has no 

jurisdiction over a civil action that was disposed of by the District Court in April 1990 –

the order of dismissal which we affirmed in a Judgment Order issued on December 31, 

1990. See C.A. No. 90-5392.

Accordingly, because the appeal lacks merit, we will dismiss it pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989).

 

1 We note that while Shemonsky’s notice of appeal makes reference to the District 

Court’s order entered on March 11, 2011, and the March 11th order was entered on the 

docket in both M.D. Pa. Civ. Nos. 10-cv-00260 and 10-cv-00261, his notice of appeal 

was only docketed in M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 10-cv-00260. Given that it appears Shemonsky 

intended his notice of appeal to be docketed in Civ. No. 10-cv-00261 also, the Clerk of 

the District Court is directed to enter his notice on the docket in that civil action as well.

2

Shemonsky filed a timely motion for reconsideration in M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 10-cv00260, which was denied by the District Court in an Order entered on March 25, 2011. 

However, Shemonsky did not file an amended notice of appeal. Accordingly, the District 

Court’s decision with respect to his reconsideration motion is not within the scope of this 

appeal.