Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gregory Bader v. Mark Kurdys, 18-2408 (2019)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 18-2408 Visitors: 3
Filed: Apr. 29, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2408 GREGORY BADER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARK CLIFFORD KURDYS; ROBERTS & STEVENS, P.A., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-00294-GCM) Submitted: April 25, 2019 Decided: April 29, 2019 Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unp
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2408 GREGORY BADER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARK CLIFFORD KURDYS; ROBERTS & STEVENS, P.A., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-00294-GCM) Submitted: April 25, 2019 Decided: April 29, 2019 Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Bader, Appellant Pro Se. Cynthia L. Van Horne, POYNER SPRUILL, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gregory Bader appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his claims against Defendants and granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on their breach of contract counterclaim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bader v. Kurdys, No. 1:16-cv-00294-GCM (W.D.N.C. Sept. 1, 2017, Oct. 2, 2018, & Oct. 31, 2018). We deny Bader’s motion for a transcript at Government expense. 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