Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Andrew Taylor v. Ronald Davis, 14-2043 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 14-2043 Visitors: 29
Filed: Jun. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2043 ANDREW TAYLOR; NAOMI TAYLOR, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. RONALD JEFFERSON DAVIS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:13-cv-02717-RMG) Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Jefferson Davi
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2043 ANDREW TAYLOR; NAOMI TAYLOR, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. RONALD JEFFERSON DAVIS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:13-cv-02717-RMG) Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Jefferson Davis, Appellant Pro Se. W. Andrew Gowder, Jr., PRATT-THOMAS WALKER, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronald Jefferson Davis, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and upholding the bankruptcy court’s determination that the debt he owes to Andrew and Naomi Taylor is non-dischargeable in his bankruptcy case. On appeal, Davis argues only that the Taylors failed to timely file the certificate of service for the amended complaint and that the bankruptcy court erred by denying his motion to strike the amended complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration of that order. We grant the Taylors’ motion to supplement the record. Upon review of the record, as supplemented, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Taylor v. Davis, No. 2:13-cv-02717- RMG (D.S.C. Sept. 11, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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