Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Rogers v. Unitrin Auto Home, 05-2102 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-2102 Visitors: 27
Filed: Mar. 28, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2102 MICHAEL W. ROGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and REBA L. ROGERS, Plaintiff, versus UNITRIN AUTO AND HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a Kemper Auto and Home; AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Carl Horn, III, Magistrate Judge. (CA-04-41-5) Submitted: Mar
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2102 MICHAEL W. ROGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and REBA L. ROGERS, Plaintiff, versus UNITRIN AUTO AND HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a Kemper Auto and Home; AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Carl Horn, III, Magistrate Judge. (CA-04-41-5) Submitted: March 15, 2006 Decided: March 28, 2006 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael W. Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Tracy Lynn Eggleston, Garrett John McAvoy, COZEN O’CONNOR, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael W. Rogers appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in his breach of contract action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge.* See Rogers v. Unitrin Auto & Home Ins. Co., No. CA-04-41-5 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 22, 2005). 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 * The parties consented to jurisdiction of the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). - 3 -
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