Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Douglas McPhail v. Wells Fargo Dealer Services, 14-1057 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 14-1057 Visitors: 1
Filed: Jun. 13, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1057 DOUGLAS E. MCPHAIL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO DEALER SERVICES, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:13-cv-00645-BO) Submitted: May 28, 2014 Decided: June 13, 2014 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas E. McPhail, Appell
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1057 DOUGLAS E. MCPHAIL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO DEALER SERVICES, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:13-cv-00645-BO) Submitted: May 28, 2014 Decided: June 13, 2014 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas E. McPhail, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Elliot Bayzle, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Douglas E. McPhail appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing the federal claims in his civil action for failure to state a claim, declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state claims and remanding them to state court. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. McPhail v. Wells Fargo Dealer Servs., Inc., No. 5:13-cv-00645-BO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 23, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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