Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hendricks v. SC Title Insurance, 00-2589 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-2589 Visitors: 21
Filed: Feb. 27, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2589 In Re: CARL C. HENDRICKS, JR., Debtor. CARL C. HENDRICKS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee, KEVIN CAMPBELL, Trustee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Soloman Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-00-625-9-8AJ, BK-93-74334-B) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: February 27, 2001 Before WIDENER
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2589 In Re: CARL C. HENDRICKS, JR., Debtor. CARL C. HENDRICKS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee, KEVIN CAMPBELL, Trustee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Soloman Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-00-625-9-8AJ, BK-93-74334-B) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: February 27, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl C. Hendricks, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. David Randolph Whitt, MOSES, KOON & BRACKETT, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Carl C. Hendricks, Jr., appeals the district court’s order af- firming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing his civil com- plaint. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation discloses no re- versible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hendricks v. South Carolina Title Ins. Co., Nos. CA-00-625-9-8AJ; BK-93-74334-B (D.S.C. Nov. 17, 2000). 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 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