Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

House v. Aiken Cnty Natl Bank, 96-1544 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-1544 Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 18, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1544 HAROLD D. HOUSE; DEBORAH S. HOUSE, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus AIKEN COUNTY NATIONAL BANK; WADE BRODIE; GORDON PARROTT; TED MORTON; L. O. BENTON; HAROLD D. ENLOE; MICHAEL LAUGHLIN; DAVID LOCK; STANLEY JACKSON; RICHARD VON BEUDINGEN; GARY MILNER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-94-1560-1-6BC)
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1544 HAROLD D. HOUSE; DEBORAH S. HOUSE, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus AIKEN COUNTY NATIONAL BANK; WADE BRODIE; GORDON PARROTT; TED MORTON; L. O. BENTON; HAROLD D. ENLOE; MICHAEL LAUGHLIN; DAVID LOCK; STANLEY JACKSON; RICHARD VON BEUDINGEN; GARY MILNER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-94-1560-1-6BC) Submitted: December 12, 1996 Decided: December 18, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harold D. House, Deborah S. House, Appellants Pro Se. James Rezner Barber, III, TODD & BARBER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal the district court's order granting Appel- lees' motion for summary judgment without prejudice to Appellants' right to seek further appropriate relief. We have reviewed the rec- ord and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. House v. Aiken County Nat'l Bank, No. CA-94-1560-1-6BC (D.S.C. Feb. 28, 1996). 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