Filed: Apr. 29, 2008
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT April 29, 2008 No. 07-15868 THOMAS K. KAHN Non-Argument Calendar CLERK D. C. Docket No. 06-00635-CV-WS-B VICTORIA NICHOLSON, SAM NICHOLSON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama (April 29, 2008) Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT April 29, 2008 No. 07-15868 THOMAS K. KAHN Non-Argument Calendar CLERK D. C. Docket No. 06-00635-CV-WS-B VICTORIA NICHOLSON, SAM NICHOLSON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama (April 29, 2008) Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER ..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
April 29, 2008
No. 07-15868 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 06-00635-CV-WS-B
VICTORIA NICHOLSON,
SAM NICHOLSON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
(April 29, 2008)
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The complaint in this case alleges that the Department of Agriculture
erroneously, arbitrarily and with intent to discriminate against Victoria Nicholson
and her husband placed Victoria Nicholson’s loan in foreclosure in violation of the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq. The Secretary moved the
district court for summary judgment, and the court granted his motion on two
alternative grounds: the claim was time-barred, and the Nicholsons failed to make
out a prima facie case of discrimination.
The Nicholsons now appeal. We agree that the claim is time-barred and that
the Nicholsons failed to establish a prima facie case. The district court’s judgment
is, accordingly,
AFFIRMED.
2