Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

John Laschkewitsch v. Lincoln Life and Annuity, 18-1027 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 18-1027 Visitors: 19
Filed: Jun. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1027 JOHN B. LASCHKEWITSCH, as Administrator for the Estate of Ben Laschkewitsch, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LINCOLN LIFE AND ANNUITY DISTRIBUTORS, INC., d/b/a Lincoln Financial Group, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:13-cv-00315-BO) Submitted: June 19, 2018 Decided: June 28, 2018 Before NIEMEYER an
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1027 JOHN B. LASCHKEWITSCH, as Administrator for the Estate of Ben Laschkewitsch, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LINCOLN LIFE AND ANNUITY DISTRIBUTORS, INC., d/b/a Lincoln Financial Group, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:13-cv-00315-BO) Submitted: June 19, 2018 Decided: June 28, 2018 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John B. Laschkewitsch, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Nis Leerberg, Raleigh, North Carolina, Bridget Warren, SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Robert R. Marcus, BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Laschkewitsch v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Distribs., Inc., No. 5:13-cv-00315-BO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 11, 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