Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

DeTemple v. Allstate Insurance, 98-2675 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-2675 Visitors: 14
Filed: Aug. 25, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2675 GARY L. DETEMPLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Defendant - Appellee, and GARY A. EDDY, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-93-131) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 25, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2675 GARY L. DETEMPLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Defendant - Appellee, and GARY A. EDDY, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-93-131) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 25, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary L. DeTemple, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Hood Foreman, BACHMANN, HESS, BACHMANN & GARDEN, Wheeling, West Virginia; Eric Simon Lipsetts, William G. Jepsen, Jr., Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gary L. DeTemple appeals from the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of the Allstate Insurance Company in his civil action alleging improper withholding of in- surance benefits and the court’s denials of his motions for recon- sideration and recusal. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See DeTemple v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. CA-93-131 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 5, Sept. 4, and Dec. 8, 1998). 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