Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Bowen v. State Farm Fire, 95-2047 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-2047 Visitors: 61
Filed: Aug. 02, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2047 JOHN BOWEN, II, d/b/a Marbo Limited; EARL WAYNE BURNETTE, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, A stock company in Bloomington, Illinois, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Salisbury. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-170-4) Submitted: November 21, 1995 Decided: August 2, 1996 Before WILKINSON, C
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2047 JOHN BOWEN, II, d/b/a Marbo Limited; EARL WAYNE BURNETTE, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, A stock company in Bloomington, Illinois, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Salisbury. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-170-4) Submitted: November 21, 1995 Decided: August 2, 1996 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Bowen, II, Earl Wayne Burnette, Appellants Pro Se. Andrew Albert Vanore, III, YATES, MCLAMB & WEYHER, Raleigh, North Caro- lina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal from the district court's order denying a motion for the district court judge to recuse himself and from the order dismissing this diversity action as a sanction for Appel- lants' repeated failure to comply with discovery requests and fail- ure to comply with the court's orders. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bowen v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CA-94-170-4 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 30 & 31, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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