Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Sherye Epps v. Midvale Indemnity Company, 18-1059 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 18-1059 Visitors: 18
Filed: Aug. 07, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1059 SHERYE EPPS, d/b/a Sunshine Shoes, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MIDVALE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (4:16-cv-02747-BHH) Submitted: July 19, 2018 Decided: August 7, 2018 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sherye Epps, Ap
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1059 SHERYE EPPS, d/b/a Sunshine Shoes, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MIDVALE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (4:16-cv-02747-BHH) Submitted: July 19, 2018 Decided: August 7, 2018 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sherye Epps, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sherye Epps appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting Midvale Indemnity Company’s (“Midvale”) motion to enforce the settlement agreement. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Epps leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny both parties’ motions for sanctions, * and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Epps v. Midvale Indem. Co., No. 4:16-cv-02747-BHH (D.S.C. Dec. 21, 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 * The contentions raised in Epps’ motion for sanctions are irrelevant to this action. With regard to Midvale’s motion for sanctions, although we reject the summary assertions raised in Epps’ appellate filings, we find that this appeal does not warrant the imposition of sanctions. 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