Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Thomas Beaumont, III v. South State Bank, 16-1071 (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-1071 Visitors: 30
Filed: Mar. 22, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1071 THOMAS WILSON BEAUMONT, III, House of Beaumont, Beneficiary, Pre-1861 private American Citizen of the United States of America, the de jure Republic, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH STATE BANK; UNKNOWN TRUSTEES 1-10, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (9:15-mc-00385-CWH-MGB) Submitted: March 17, 20
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1071 THOMAS WILSON BEAUMONT, III, House of Beaumont, Beneficiary, Pre-1861 private American Citizen of the United States of America, the de jure Republic, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH STATE BANK; UNKNOWN TRUSTEES 1-10, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (9:15-mc-00385-CWH-MGB) Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Wilson Beaumont, III, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas Wilson Beaumont, III, appeals the district court’s January 11, 2016, order dismissing as moot his self-styled revised bill in equity and petition for a temporary restraining order and denying his self-styled petition to seal and proceed ex parte. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Beaumont v. S. State Bank, No. 9:15-mc-00385- CWH-MGB (D.S.C. Jan. 11, 2016) 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