Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

ReliaStar Life Ins Company v. John Laschkewitsch, 17-2308 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 17-2308 Visitors: 7
Filed: Apr. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2308 RELIASTAR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHN B. LASCHKEWITSCH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:13-cv-00210-BO) Submitted: April 19, 2018 Decided: April 23, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2308 RELIASTAR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHN B. LASCHKEWITSCH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:13-cv-00210-BO) Submitted: April 19, 2018 Decided: April 23, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John B. Laschkewitsch, Appellant Pro Se. Hutson Brit Smelley, MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON LLP, Houston, Texas, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John B. Laschkewitsch appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), (b)(4) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny leave to strike the pro se supplemental brief, deny the motion to dismiss the appeal in part, deny the motion for affirmative relief from judgment, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Reliastar Life Ins. Co. v. Laschkewitsch, No. 5:13-cv-00210-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 12, 2017). 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