The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
Presently before the court are two appeals from cases before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Appellant Michael R. Shemonsky ("Shemonsky") challenges two orders issued by the Bankruptcy court on November 17, 2009. For the reasons that follow, this court will affirm the orders of the Bankruptcy Court, close Shemonsky's appeals, and deny the additional motions filed by Shemonsky as moot.
On February 16, 2007, Shemonsky filed an involuntary petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. On August 29, 2007, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed Shemonsky's case due to his failure to comply with his duties as a debtor. Shemonsky appealed the dismissal of his case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and the District Court affirmed. Shemonsky moved to reinstate his case on September 28, 2007, but this order was denied by the Bankruptcy Court. Subsequently, the District Court and the Third Circuit Court of appeals both affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's denial of reinstatement of the case. Shemonsky proceeded to file additional motions after the dismissal of his case, all of which were denied.
Shemonsky now appeals the Bankruptcy Court's denial of two of his motions. In the relevant orders-each of which is dated November 17, 2009-the Bankruptcy Court explained that it was denying Shemonsky's motions because they sought relief in a case which Shemonsky brought against the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Bankruptcy Court found that it lacks jurisdiction over said case, which had been filed in United States District Court in 1990. In the first order at issue, the Bankruptcy Court denied Shemonsky's "Sealed Motion to Produce Wiretap Order and Mail Cover Order" for the above-described reason. In the second order, the Bankruptcy court denied Shemonsky's "Motion to Produce Summonses on No. 90-180" on the same basis. Shemonsky appeals these two orders,*fn1 and his appeals are now ripe for disposition.
An appeal from a Bankruptcy Court's order places the District Court in the posture of an appellate tribunal, requiring it to accord the appropriate level of deference to the decision of the Bankruptcy Judge. In re Sharon Steel Corp., 871 F.2d 1217, 1222 (3d Cir. 1989); see also FED. R. BANKR. P. 8013. The factual findings of the Bankruptcy Court are reviewed under the "clearly erroneous" standard but its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Sharon Steel, 871 F.2d at 1222-23. This court will not disturb the resolution of an issue committed to the discretion of the Bankruptcy Court unless a manifest abuse of that discretion is apparent.*fn2 See id.
Shemonsky has failed to establish that the Bankruptcy Judge's orders were erroneous in any respect. Indeed, with the exception of a baseless and conclusory assertion that "[t]he legislative court is in contempt of court[,]" (Case No. 4:10-CV-260, Doc. 4 at 8), and an unsupported argument that "[t]he Constitution is null and void[,]" (Case No. 4:10-CV-261, Doc. 4 at 7), Shemonsky has failed even to raise allegations of error. Finding no reason to disturb the November 17, 2009 orders of the Bankruptcy Court, this court will affirm said orders and dismiss Shemonsky's appeals. The court will also dismiss Shemonsky's additional motions requesting miscellaneous relief; the court concludes that its disposition of Shemonsky's appeals renders said motions moot.
An appropriate order will issue.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: MICHAEL R. SHEMONSKY, Appellant IN RE: MICHAEL R. ...