Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Dehoney v. Barclays Amer Mort, 97-1535 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-1535 Visitors: 1
Filed: Dec. 09, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1535 MICHAEL F. DEHONEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BARCLAYS AMERICAN MORTGAGE COMPANY, and all affiliated/subordinate financial subsidiary fiduciaries to include Norwest Mortgage Company, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-3510-4-21-BE) Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 9, 1997 Be
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1535 MICHAEL F. DEHONEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BARCLAYS AMERICAN MORTGAGE COMPANY, and all affiliated/subordinate financial subsidiary fiduciaries to include Norwest Mortgage Company, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-3510-4-21-BE) Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 9, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael F. Dehoney, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Alan Jacobs, NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, Columbia, South Carolina; Thornwell Forrest Sowell, III, SOWELL, TODD, LAFFITTE, BEARD & WATSON, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders granting summary judgment and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record 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. Dehoney v. Barclays American Mortgage Co., No. CA-94-3510-4- 21BE (D.S.C. Apr. 16, 1997). Further we deny Appellant's motions for stay of judgment pending appeal and Appellee's motion for a show cause order. 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