Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Old Republic Natl v. O. Larry Woodhouse, 99-1958 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-1958 Visitors: 10
Filed: Feb. 22, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1958 OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus O. LARRY WOODHOUSE, Defendant - Appellant, and SHARP, MICHAEL, OUTTEN & GRAHAM, L.L.P.; STARKEY SHARP; SHOT D. INCORPORATED; WALNUT RANCH, INCORPORATED, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-23-2-BO, CA-97-42-BO-2) S
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1958 OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus O. LARRY WOODHOUSE, Defendant - Appellant, and SHARP, MICHAEL, OUTTEN & GRAHAM, L.L.P.; STARKEY SHARP; SHOT D. INCORPORATED; WALNUT RANCH, INCORPORATED, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-23-2-BO, CA-97-42-BO-2) Submitted: February 8, 2000 Decided: February 22, 2000 Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. O. Larry Woodhouse, Appellant Pro Se. Roy Herman Michaux, Jr., PERRY, PATRICK, FARMER & MICHAUX, P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: O. Larry Woodhouse appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Old Republic National Title Insuance Company. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Old Republic Nat’l Title Ins. v. Wood- house, et al., Nos. CA-97-23-2-BO; CA-97-42-BO-2 (E.D.N.C. June 16, 1999). 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