Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Rankine v. Rankine, 99-2612 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-2612 Visitors: 2
Filed: May 01, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2612 ANTHONY J. RANKINE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN RANKINE; CEANET INCORPORATED; CEANET PARTY LIMITED; COLIN V. RUSSELL; STOREY BLACKWOOD ACCOUNTANTS; JOHN DEAKER; JOHN CAMPBELL; DAVID HEWITT; GERALD TEO; J. HAYES, Mrs.; M. GARNETT, Mrs.; D. BARTON; J. HILL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, Dis- tr
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2612 ANTHONY J. RANKINE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN RANKINE; CEANET INCORPORATED; CEANET PARTY LIMITED; COLIN V. RUSSELL; STOREY BLACKWOOD ACCOUNTANTS; JOHN DEAKER; JOHN CAMPBELL; DAVID HEWITT; GERALD TEO; J. HAYES, Mrs.; M. GARNETT, Mrs.; D. BARTON; J. HILL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, Dis- trict Judge. (CA-96-61-5-V) Submitted: April 20, 2000 Decided: May 1, 2000 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony J. Rankine, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Cornelius Landreth, Hugh Davis North, III, HARRISON, NORTH, COOKE & LANDRETH, Greens- boro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Anthony J. Rankine appeals the district court’s order dismiss- ing, following remand, his civil action on forum non conveniens grounds. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm sub- stantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Rankine v. Rankine, No. CA-96-61-5-V (W.D.N.C. Nov. 22, 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. Appellant’s petition for sanctions is denied. 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