Filed: Jun. 17, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1051 BRANCH BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CATHY G. LANIER; RANDY D. LANIER, Defendants - Appellants, and TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:13-cv-01318-JFA) Submitted: June 4, 2015 Decided: June 17, 2015 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1051 BRANCH BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CATHY G. LANIER; RANDY D. LANIER, Defendants - Appellants, and TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:13-cv-01318-JFA) Submitted: June 4, 2015 Decided: June 17, 2015 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed b..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1051 BRANCH BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CATHY G. LANIER; RANDY D. LANIER, Defendants - Appellants, and TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:13-cv-01318-JFA) Submitted: June 4, 2015 Decided: June 17, 2015 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cathy G. Lanier; Randy D. Lanier, Appellants Pro Se. Steven Barry Licata, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Appellants Cathy G. Lanier and Randy D. Lanier appeal the district court’s order denying reconsideration of the court’s earlier order denying reconsideration of the court’s judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Branch Bank & Trust Co. v. Lanier, No. 3:13-cv- 01318-JFA (D.S.C. Dec. 11, 2014). We deny Appellants’ pending motions. 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