Clay v. C T Corp. System

Fourth Circuit

Clay v. C T Corp. System

463 F. App'x 200

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 2, 2012

DocketNo. 11-1962

StatusPublished

This text of 463 F. App'x 200 (Clay v. C T Corp. System) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clay v. C T Corp. System, 463 F. App'x 200 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Percy Lee Clay and Diane Clay appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of CitiMortgage, Inc., on their claims for breach of contract, conversion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Clay v. Citimortgage, Inc., No. 1:08-cv-00925-WO-PTS, 2011 WL 3511579 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 11, 2011). We deny the Clays’ motions to recuse and we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Percy Lee Clay and Diane Clay appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of CitiMortgage, Inc., on their claims for breach of contract, conversion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Clay v. Citimortgage, Inc., No. 1:08-cv-00925-WO-PTS, 2011 WL 3511579 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 11, 2011). We deny the Clays’ motions to recuse and we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

463 F. App'x 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clay-v-c-t-corp-system-ca4-2012.