Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

USRP v. Langston, 06-1528 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-1528 Visitors: 77
Filed: Jan. 17, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1528 USRP (GANT 1), LLC; USRP (GANT 2), LLC, Plaintiffs - Appellees, versus BILLY WAYNE LANGSTON, JR., d/b/a Pit & Pump Tanks & Equipment, Incorporated, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (4:04-cv-00143-D) Submitted: November 30, 2006 Decided: January 17, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1528 USRP (GANT 1), LLC; USRP (GANT 2), LLC, Plaintiffs - Appellees, versus BILLY WAYNE LANGSTON, JR., d/b/a Pit & Pump Tanks & Equipment, Incorporated, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (4:04-cv-00143-D) Submitted: November 30, 2006 Decided: January 17, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy Wayne Langston, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Richard C. Gaskins, Jr., Michael T. Champion, MOORE & VAN ALLEN, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Billy Wayne Langston, Jr., appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of USRP (Gant 1), LLC, and USRP (Gant 2), LLC (“USRP”) on USRP’s complaint seeking damages for environmental remediation costs. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See USRP v. Langston, No. 4:04-cv- 00143-D (E.D.N.C. Mar. 13, 2006). Additionally, we deny Langston’s pending motion to strike USRP’s informal brief. 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