Court Opinion

ID: 1010174
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:07:17.488769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:08.375853
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 02-2125

In Re:   BOURY, INCORPORATED,

                                                              Debtor.

ORMET CORPORATION,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

           versus

GEORGE BOURY; MICHAEL BOURY; NANCY E. BOURY;
PEARL W. BOURY; BOURY, INCORPORATED; 808
CORPORATION;    TJR,   INCORPORATED;    BOURY
ENTERPRISES; BOURY ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED,

                                            Defendants - Appellants,

           and

WHEELING INN, INCORPORATED,

                                                           Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-01-134-5, BK-01-51663, AP-01-5175)

Submitted:   March 20, 2003                 Decided:   March 25, 2003

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Wyant, BAILEY & WYANT, Wheeling, West Virginia; Richard T.
Ricketts, RICKETTS, CO., L.P.A., Columbus, Ohio; Ray Byrd, SCHRADER
BYRD, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellants. Kimberly Luff Wakim,
Robert L. Burns, Jr., THORP, REED & ARMSTRONG, L.L.P., Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

     Appellants appeal from the district court’s order affirming

the bankruptcy court’s order granting Appellee relief from the

automatic stay to pursue a state court action.    We have reviewed

the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible

error.   Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Boury, Inc. v. Ormet, Nos. CA-01-134-5, BK-01-51663, AP-

01-5175 (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 23, 2002). 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