Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Brad Johnson v. Randall Bryant, 12-1055 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-1055 Visitors: 84
Filed: Jun. 06, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1055 BRAD R. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RANDALL BRYANT; DORIS CUBITT, CPA; MALANE S. PIKE, Esq.; MARK T. HOBBS, CPA; GARY F. FORTE; BOBBY R. CREECH, JR., CPA; DONALD H. BURKETT, CPA; ANTHONY A. CALLANDER, CPA; WENDELL LUNSFORD, PA; JOHN F. CAMP, CPA, Defendants – Appellees, and HENRY D. MCMASTER, Defendant. No. 12-1057 BRAD R. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DORIS CUBITT, CPA; A. ABLE, CPA; B. BAKER, CPA; C. CHAR
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1055 BRAD R. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RANDALL BRYANT; DORIS CUBITT, CPA; MALANE S. PIKE, Esq.; MARK T. HOBBS, CPA; GARY F. FORTE; BOBBY R. CREECH, JR., CPA; DONALD H. BURKETT, CPA; ANTHONY A. CALLANDER, CPA; WENDELL LUNSFORD, PA; JOHN F. CAMP, CPA, Defendants – Appellees, and HENRY D. MCMASTER, Defendant. No. 12-1057 BRAD R. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DORIS CUBITT, CPA; A. ABLE, CPA; B. BAKER, CPA; C. CHARLIE, CPA, Defendants – Appellees, and LEWIS V. HALL, Defendant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia and Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (3:09-cv-00102-TLW; 4:08-cv-02726-TLW) Submitted: May 18, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brad R. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Jerome Scott Kozacki, WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Brad R. Johnson appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to the Appellants and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the records and the district court’s orders and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. See Johnson v. Bryant, Nos. 3:09-cv-00102-TLW; 4:08-cv-02726-TLW (D.S.C. Sept. 28, 2011; Dec. 14, 2011). 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 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