In Re: Shemonsky , 293 F. App'x 110 ( 2008 )

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
9-18-2008
In Re: Shemonsky
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-4499
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Shemonsky " (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 515.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/515
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
ALD-285 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-4499
___________
In Re: MICHAEL R. SHEMONSKY,
Appellant
MICHAEL G. OLEYAR, JR.,
Trustee
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-01885)
District Judge: Honorable Malcolm Muir
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
September 11, 2008
Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 18, 2008)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Michael Shemonsky appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his bankruptcy
appeal. In February 2007, Shemonsky filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the
Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On August 29, 2007, the
Bankruptcy Court dismissed the petition for failure to file the required documents, and
Shemonsky filed a notice of appeal to the District Court. By order entered October 23,
2007, the District Court directed Shemonsky to file a brief which conformed with Rule
8010 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. After Shemonsky filed his brief, the
District Court concluded that the brief did not conform with Rule 8010 and did not assert
any reason to question the order of the Bankruptcy Court. After the District Court
dismissed the appeal, Shemonsky filed a timely notice of appeal from the District Court’s
order.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. Rule 8010 requires that
the brief contain, inter alia, a statement of the issues presented, a statement of the case,
and argument. We have held that Rule 8010 serves the substantive purpose of giving the
District Court notice of the alleged errors in the appealed decision. In re Trans World
Airlines, Inc., 145 F.3d 124, 132 (3d Cir. 1998). Therefore, a District Court has the
discretion to deem an argument waived if it is not presented in compliance with Rule
8010. Id. In his District Court brief, Shemonsky did not present any cognizable
challenges to the Bankruptcy Court order dismissing his case. Likewise, in his brief on
appeal, he does not present any cognizable challenge to the District Court’s order
dismissing his bankruptcy appeal.
Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the
appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by
2
the District Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit
I.O.P. 10.6. Shemonsky’s motions to disbar and permanently enjoin Michael G. Oleyar
and to reconsider the Clerk’s January 3, 2008, order are denied.
3