UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

HARRY A. HIEKE, JR., D.P.M.,

Defendant-Appellee,

and No. 00-1511

FAMILY FOOT SPECIALISTS, LTD,

Defendant,

v.

CREDIT RECOVERY SYSTEMS, LTD.,

COMPANY,

Movant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News.

Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge.

(CA-99-55-4)

Submitted: September 29, 2000

Decided: October 19, 2000

Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 
COUNSEL

Joshua Michael David, DAVID, KAMP & FRANK, Newport News,

Virginia, for Appellant. Craig Paul Wittman, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia; Harry A. Hieke,

Jr., Chesapeake, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Credit Recovery Systems (CRS) appeals from the district court’s

order denying its Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) motion to intervene as a

matter of right and accepting the parties’ settlement agreement. We

have reviewed the record and find that Credit Recovery Systems had

a "significantly protectable interest" in the subject matter of the

action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2); Teague v. Bakker, 931 F.2d 259,

260-61 (4th Cir. 1991). However, we further find the district court did

not abuse its discretion in denying CRS’s motion to intervene because

CRS provided no basis upon which to find that Dr. Hieke’s forbearance of his Medicaid and Medicare claims would bind CRS or impede

its ability to pursue these claims in a separate action. See id.; cf.

Spring Constr. Co. v. Harris, 614 F.2d 374, 377 (4th Cir. 1980). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We deny the

Government’s motion to strike certain documents that were filed by

CRS. We dispense with 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

2 UNITED STATES v. HIEKE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

HARRY A. HIEKE, JR., D.P.M.,

Defendant-Appellee,

and No. 00-1511

FAMILY FOOT SPECIALISTS, LTD,

Defendant,

v.

CREDIT RECOVERY SYSTEMS, LTD.,

COMPANY,

Movant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News.

Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge.

(CA-99-55-4)

Submitted: September 29, 2000

Decided: October 19, 2000

Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 
COUNSEL

Joshua Michael David, DAVID, KAMP & FRANK, Newport News,

Virginia, for Appellant. Craig Paul Wittman, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia; Harry A. Hieke,

Jr., Chesapeake, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Credit Recovery Systems (CRS) appeals from the district court’s

order denying its Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) motion to intervene as a

matter of right and accepting the parties’ settlement agreement. We

have reviewed the record and find that Credit Recovery Systems had

a "significantly protectable interest" in the subject matter of the

action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2); Teague v. Bakker, 931 F.2d 259,

260-61 (4th Cir. 1991). However, we further find the district court did

not abuse its discretion in denying CRS’s motion to intervene because

CRS provided no basis upon which to find that Dr. Hieke’s forbearance of his Medicaid and Medicare claims would bind CRS or impede

its ability to pursue these claims in a separate action. See id.; cf.

Spring Constr. Co. v. Harris, 614 F.2d 374, 377 (4th Cir. 1980). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We deny the

Government’s motion to strike certain documents that were filed by

CRS. We dispense with 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

2 UNITED STATES v. HIEKE