Case Name: Melvin Stanley YATES, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-07-27
Citations: 139 F. App'x 584
Docket Number: No. 04-2504
Parties: Melvin Stanley YATES, II, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 333
Pages: 584–584

Head Matter:
Melvin Stanley YATES, II, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 04-2504.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 30, 2005.
Decided: July 27, 2005.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-04-2845-8-RWT; BK-03-13176; AP-03-1244; AP-03-1218).
Charles E. Wagner, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Robert J. Spagno-letti, Attorney General, Edward E. Schwab, Deputy Attorney General, James C. McKay, Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney General, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Melvin Stanley Yates, II, appeals from the district court's order affirming the determination by the bankruptcy court that the District of Columbia was not precluded from introducing evidence of fraudulent conduct by Yates in its civil action to enforce the Consumer Protection Procedures Act, D.C.Code Ann. § 28-3904, 28-3909 (2001), against Yates after it had voluntarily dismissed with prejudice its claim that any debt in its favor against Yates based on fraud was nondischargeable in Yates' bankruptcy action. We have reviewed the briefs, the joint appendix, and the bankruptcy court and district court orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Yates v. District of Columbia, No. CA-04-2845-8-RWT (D. Md. filed Nov. 10, 2004; entered Nov. 12, 2004). 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