Peter Mitrano v. RJM Acquisitions LLC, No. 12-2044 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2044 In Re: PETER PAUL MITRANO, Debtor. -------------------------PETER PAUL MITRANO, Debtor Appellant, v. RJM ACQUISITIONS LLC; ECAST SETTLEMENT CORPORATION; PRA RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, LLC; FAIRFAX COUNTY; ASSET ACCEPTANCE LLC; AMERICAN EXPRESS CENTURION BANK; DENOVUS CORPORATION LTD; VIRGINIA KELLY, Creditors Appellees, and ROBERT OGDEN TYLER; W. CLARKSON MCDOW, JR., Trustees - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:12-cv-00122-LMB-IDD; 11-14531-RGM) Submitted: October 15, 2012 Decided: Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. October 18, 2012 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peter Paul Mitrano, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy F. Loftus, COUNTY ATTORNEY S OFFICE, Fairfax, Virginia; Linda D. Regenhardt, BAILEYGARY, PC, Vienna, Virginia; Derek K. Prosser, TYLER, BARTL, RAMSDELL & COUNTS, PLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Peter Paul Mitrano appeals the district court s order affirming the bankruptcy court s order dismissing without prejudice his objections to proofs of claim filed by numerous creditors in his bankruptcy case. The district court also rejected Mitrano s challenge to the transfer of venue from the Southern District of West Virginia to the Eastern District of Virginia, and warned Mitrano that further frivolous appeals to that court, including reargument of his challenge to the venue transfer order, will be subject to sanctions. the record and find no reversible error. We have reviewed Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Mitrano v. RJM Acquisitions LLC, No. 1:12-cv-00122-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va. July 24, 2012). We decline to address Mitrano s challenge to the validity of his conviction entered in the District Court for the District of New Hampshire. We deny expedite and for a stay pending appeal. Mitrano s motions to 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
