Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

John Carrington v. IMB HoldCo LLC, 16-2190 (2017)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-2190 Visitors: 44
Filed: Jul. 06, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2190 JOHN C. CARRINGTON; DEBORAH T. CARRINGTON, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. IMB HOLDCO LLC; ONEWEST BANK, FSB, Defendants - Appellees, and STEVEN T. MNUCHIN, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (5:13-cv-03422-JMC) Submitted: June 29, 2017 Decided: July 6, 2017 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by u
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2190 JOHN C. CARRINGTON; DEBORAH T. CARRINGTON, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. IMB HOLDCO LLC; ONEWEST BANK, FSB, Defendants - Appellees, and STEVEN T. MNUCHIN, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (5:13-cv-03422-JMC) Submitted: June 29, 2017 Decided: July 6, 2017 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Thomas Irick, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN THOMAS IRICK, Washington, DC, for Appellants. Rik S. Tozzi, Richard Carlton Keller, BURR & FORMAN LLP, Birmingham, Alabama, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: John C. Carrington and Deborah T. Carrington appeal the district court’s order denying their Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend its order denying their Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from its order dismissing their civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Carrington v. Mnuchin, No. 5:13-cv-03422-JMC (D.S.C. Sept. 14, 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 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