Case Name: In re: Rosemary C. BUTCHER, Debtor, Rosemary C. Butcher, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lawyers Title Insurance Company; Plunkett & Cooney, P.C.; Howard & Howard Attorneys, P.C., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-02-20
Citations: 30 F. App'x 458
Docket Number: No. 00-2154
Parties: In re: Rosemary C. BUTCHER, Debtor, Rosemary C. Butcher, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lawyers Title Insurance Company; Plunkett & Cooney, P.C.; Howard & Howard Attorneys, P.C., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NORRIS, SILER, and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 30
Pages: 458–459

Head Matter:
In re: Rosemary C. BUTCHER, Debtor, Rosemary C. Butcher, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lawyers Title Insurance Company; Plunkett & Cooney, P.C.; Howard & Howard Attorneys, P.C., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 00-2154.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Feb. 20, 2002.
Before NORRIS, SILER, and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff, Rosemary C. Butcher appeals from the judgment of the district court which dismissed her cause of action. Her assignments of error are directed at the district court's denial of her motion to remand the cause to state court.
Having carefully considered the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in denying the motion to remand, or in granting judgment to defendants.
Because the reasoning which supports judgment for defendants has been articulated by the bankruptcy and district courts, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed upon the reasoning employed by that court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 22, 1998, and by the bankruptcy court in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated January 13,1999.