Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

John Laschkewitsch v. Legal and General America, Inc, 17-2374 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 17-2374 Visitors: 13
Filed: Jun. 07, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2374 JOHN LASCHKEWITSCH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LEGAL & GENERAL AMERICA, INC., d/b/a Banner Life Insurance Company, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:15-cv-00251-D) Submitted: May 25, 2018 Decided: June 7, 2018 Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2374 JOHN LASCHKEWITSCH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LEGAL & GENERAL AMERICA, INC., d/b/a Banner Life Insurance Company, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:15-cv-00251-D) Submitted: May 25, 2018 Decided: June 7, 2018 Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John B. Laschkewitsch, Appellant Pro Se. Hutson Brit Smelley, MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON LLP, Houston, Texas, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John B. Laschkewitsch appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to Defendant, denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, and awarding attorney’s fees to Defendant. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Laschkewitsch v. Legal and Gen. Am., Inc., No. 5:15-cv-00251-D (E.D.N.C. Mar. 23 & Nov. 1, 2017). We grant leave to proceed in formal pauperis and 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