UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1966
In Re: JOHN T. COPLEY,
Debtor.
JOHN T. COPLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
STATE AUTOMOBILE MUTUAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY; WANDA COPLEY; UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA; H. LYNDEN GRAHAM, JR.; JANET
SMITH-HOLBROOK, former Chapter 7 Trustee;
DAVID KONRAD, former counsel to Chapter 7
Trustee; JAMES M. PIERSON, former Chapter 13
bankruptcy attorney,
Parties in Interest - Appellees,
and
DEBRA A. WERTMAN; ALFRED SINES, JR., former
divorce attorney; JAMES W. LANE, JR., former
counsel for the debtor; R. SCOTT CLARKE; SHAWN
D. BAYLISS; STEPHEN L. THOMPSON,
Parties in Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis-
trict of West Virginia, at Huntington. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (CA-99-1054-3, BK-97-30131)
Submitted: May 24, 2001 Decided: June 18, 2001
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John T. Copley, Appellant Pro Se. Arden John Curry, II, PAULEY,
CURRY, STURGEON & VANDERFORD, Charleston, West Virginia; Gary L.
Call, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia;
Lynn B. Pollard, HAMILTON, BURGESS, YOUNG & POLLARD, P.L.L.C.,
Fayetteville, West Virginia; Janet Smith-Holbrook, David Konrad,
HUDDLESTON, BOLEN, BEATTY, PORTER & COPEN, Huntington, West Vir-
ginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
John T. Copley appeals from the district court’s orders
affirming numerous orders of the bankruptcy court and denying his
motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the
lower courts’ opinions and orders and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, while we grant Copley’s motion to file a supplemental
brief and have considered the issues therein, we affirm on the rea-
soning of the district court. Copley v. State Auto. Mut. Prop. &
Cas. Ins. Co., Nos. CA-99-1054-3; BK-97-30131 (S.D.W. Va. June 12
& July 6, 2000). In light of the resolution of this appeal, the
stay pending appeal entered on October 16, 2000, is terminated. 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
3