Filed: Apr. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2556 BRUCE B. THOMAS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (3:15-cv-01604-RBH) Submitted: April 26, 2016 Decided: April 29, 2016 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2556 BRUCE B. THOMAS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (3:15-cv-01604-RBH) Submitted: April 26, 2016 Decided: April 29, 2016 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce B..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2556 BRUCE B. THOMAS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (3:15-cv-01604-RBH) Submitted: April 26, 2016 Decided: April 29, 2016 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce B. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. James J. Hinchey, Jr., HINCHEY, MURRAY & PAGLIARINI, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bruce B. Thomas appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to remand to state court and granting the Defendant’s motion to dismiss this action seeking the recovery of benefits under insurance policies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Thomas v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co., No. 3:15-cv-01604-RBH (D.S.C. Nov. 20, 2015). 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
