Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Wright v. Donegal Insurance Co, 06-2040 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-2040 Visitors: 53
Filed: Apr. 02, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2040 STEPHEN M. WRIGHT, Individually and as Trustee, Trust FBO of Secured Creditors of Perryville Investment Group, LLC, Plaintiff - Appellant, and PERRYVILLE INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, Assignor/Contract Seller, Plaintiff, versus DONEGAL INSURANCE COMPANIES; LASSEN, MARINE AND WEBSTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., Distri
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2040 STEPHEN M. WRIGHT, Individually and as Trustee, Trust FBO of Secured Creditors of Perryville Investment Group, LLC, Plaintiff - Appellant, and PERRYVILLE INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, Assignor/Contract Seller, Plaintiff, versus DONEGAL INSURANCE COMPANIES; LASSEN, MARINE AND WEBSTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:06-cv-00827-WDQ) Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 2, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen M. Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Allan Wothers, Owen Joseph Curley, NILES, BARTON & WILMER, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Stephen M. Wright appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his complaint against the Defendants. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wright v. Donegal Ins. Cos., No. 1:06-cv-00827-WDQ (D. Md. June 7, 2006). Wright also appeals from the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. Although the district court incorrectly construed this motion as one filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), we have reviewed the motion and the documents submitted with the motion and find that the Rule 59(e) motion was properly denied. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. 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 - 3 -
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