AWAH v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT OF AMERICA, 11-2028. (2012)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20120202136
Visitors: 9
Filed: Feb. 02, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 02, 2012
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Edmund K. Awah appeals the district court's order granting Defendant's motion to strike his amended complaint and/or dismiss the complaint because Awah failed to file his amended complaint within the time allowed by the court's prior order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc. , 76 F.3d 530 , 534 (4th Cir. 1996) (holding that decision to find ex
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Edmund K. Awah appeals the district court's order granting Defendant's motion to strike his amended complaint and/or dismiss the complaint because Awah failed to file his amended complaint within the time allowed by the court's prior order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc. , 76 F.3d 530 , 534 (4th Cir. 1996) (holding that decision to find exc..
More
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Edmund K. Awah appeals the district court's order granting Defendant's motion to strike his amended complaint and/or dismiss the complaint because Awah failed to file his amended complaint within the time allowed by the court's prior order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 76 F.3d 530, 534 (4th Cir. 1996) (holding that decision to find excusable neglect on a late filing is reviewed for an abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Awah v. Midland Credit Mgmt. of Am., No. 8:10-cv-00885-RWT (D. Md. Aug. 26, 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.
Source: Leagle
