Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Athalia Crayton v. Teneeda Ferron, 19-1765 (2019)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-1765 Visitors: 9
Filed: Dec. 30, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1765 ATHALIA CRAYTON, Defendant - Appellant, v. TENEEDA FERRON, Defendant - Appellee, and NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cv-00593-TDS-JLW) Submitted: December 19, 2019 Decided: December 30, 2019 Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circ
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1765 ATHALIA CRAYTON, Defendant - Appellant, v. TENEEDA FERRON, Defendant - Appellee, and NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cv-00593-TDS-JLW) Submitted: December 19, 2019 Decided: December 30, 2019 Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Athalia Crayton, Appellant Pro Se. Norman B. Smith, SMITH, JAMES, ROWLETT & COHEN, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Athalia Crayton appeals the district court’s orders and judgment concluding that her sister was the proper beneficiary of the proceeds from her mother’s life insurance policy, and denying Crayton’s motion for amended and additional findings of fact under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b), or alternatively a new trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a), (b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Crayton, No. 1:17-cv-00593-TDS-JLW (M.D.N.C. Jan. 15, 2019; June 19, 2019). We also deny Crayton’s motion for a transcript at Government expense. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer