Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Wood v. Robertson, 04-1711 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1711 Visitors: 6
Filed: Feb. 17, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1711 FAITH DAVENPORT WOOD, a/k/a Faith Davenport, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEWEY L. ROBERTSON, SR., Defendant - Appellee, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, acting through its agent the Internal Revenue Service, Third Party Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-265-8-20) Submitted: January 19, 2005 Decided: Fe
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1711 FAITH DAVENPORT WOOD, a/k/a Faith Davenport, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEWEY L. ROBERTSON, SR., Defendant - Appellee, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, acting through its agent the Internal Revenue Service, Third Party Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-265-8-20) Submitted: January 19, 2005 Decided: February 17, 2005 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Orin G. Briggs, Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellant. James O. Spence, Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Faith Davenport Wood appeals from the district court’s orders dismissing her claims to property levied upon and sold by the Internal Revenue Service and denying her motion to alter or amend the judgment. We have reviewed the briefs, the joint appendix, and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Wood v. Robertson, No. CA-04-265-8-20 (D.S.C. filed Apr. 8, entered Apr. 9, 2004 & filed Apr. 26, entered Apr. 27, 2004). 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