Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Jones v. Luthi, 08-1762 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-1762 Visitors: 26
Filed: Apr. 29, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1762 CHRISTOPHER BERNARD JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PERRY S. LUTHI, SR.; DESMINE SARDINE; LUTHI MORTGAGE COMPANY, INCORPORATED; CAROLINA TAX SERVICE; LUTHI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; LIBERTY FUNDING; GENERAL FUNDING; PERRY S. LUTHI, JR.; MARTHA PACE; LORI MURPHY; CAROL A. SIMPSON; IRA HANDY; HANDY MOISTURE & PEST CONTROL; PETE PETERSON; RON PLATT; MARSHA PLATT; SONNY NINAN; MICHAEL DOE; DEE DEE DOE; KIM DOE, Defendants - A
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1762 CHRISTOPHER BERNARD JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PERRY S. LUTHI, SR.; DESMINE SARDINE; LUTHI MORTGAGE COMPANY, INCORPORATED; CAROLINA TAX SERVICE; LUTHI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; LIBERTY FUNDING; GENERAL FUNDING; PERRY S. LUTHI, JR.; MARTHA PACE; LORI MURPHY; CAROL A. SIMPSON; IRA HANDY; HANDY MOISTURE & PEST CONTROL; PETE PETERSON; RON PLATT; MARSHA PLATT; SONNY NINAN; MICHAEL DOE; DEE DEE DOE; KIM DOE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (6:06-cv-02202-PMD) Submitted: March 31, 2009 Decided: April 29, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Bernard Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Melvin Hutson, MELVIN HUTSON, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Carol A. Simpson, Ron Platt, Marsha Platt, Greenville, South Carolina; Ira Handy, Taylors, South Carolina, Appellees Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Christopher Bernard Jones appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment in favor of all defendants on his federal civil claims and dismissing his state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jones v. Luthi, No. 6:06-cv-02202-PMD (D.S.C. June 10, 2008). We deny Jones’ motion for appointment of counsel. 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