
    In re: Thomas W. HILL, Debtor. Thomas W. Hill, Debtor—Appellant, v. D. Samuel Neill; Boyd B. Massagee, Jr.; Ervin W. Bazzle; Margaret M. Hunt; Jeffrey P. Hunt; Garford Tony Hill; Jewell Anne Hill; William Lloyd Garrison; Barbara Hill Garrison, Creditors—Appellees, and David R. Hillier, Trustee. In re Thomas W. Hill, Debtor. Thomas W. Hill, Debtor-Appellant, v. D. Samuel Neill, Boyd B. Massagee, Jr.; ERvin W. Bazzle; Margaret M. Hunt; Jeffrey P. Hunt; Garford Tony Hill; Jewell Anne Hill; William Lloyd Garrison; Barbara Hill Garrison, Creditors-Appellees.
    Nos. 04-1785, 04-2471.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 30, 2005.
    Decided April 28, 2005.
    William E. Loose, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. David G. Gray) Jr., Westall, Gray, Connolly & Davis, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees. David R. Hillier, Gum, Hillier & MeCros-key, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina, for Trustee.
    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM.

In No. 04-1785, Thomas W. Hill appeals from the district court’s order dismissing as moot his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order denying his motion to dismiss an involuntary Chapter 7 petition filed against him by the Appellees. In No. 04-2471, Hill appeals from the district court’s order that denied his motion to reconsider a prior order and dismissed as untimely his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order for relief in the underlying bankruptcy proceeding. Our review of the record included on appeal, the opinions of the courts below, and the parties’ briefs discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant the Appellees’ motion to consolidate these appeals and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hill v. Neill (In re Hill), Nos. CA-04-55-1; BK-03-11498 (W.D.N.C. filed June 10, 2004 & entered June 15, 2004; filed Oct. 12, 2004 & entered Oct. 14, 2004). We deny Hill’s motion for summary remand and 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  