Gravelle v. Kaba Ilco Corp.

Fourth Circuit

Gravelle v. Kaba Ilco Corp.

561 F. App'x 267

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 21, 2014

DocketNo. 13-2167

StatusPublished

This text of 561 F. App'x 267 (Gravelle v. Kaba Ilco Corp.) 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

Gravelle v. Kaba Ilco Corp., 561 F. App'x 267 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gordon Gravelle appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate the final arbitration award and granting Defendants’ motion to confirm the same. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Gravelle leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Gravelle v. Kaba Ilco Corp., 5:13-cv-00160-FL, 2013 WL 5230355 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 16, 2013). [268]*268We also deny Gravelle’s motion for leave to supplement. 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.

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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Gordon Gravelle appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate the final arbitration award and granting Defendants’ motion to confirm the same. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Gravelle leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Gravelle v. Kaba Ilco Corp., 5:13-cv-00160-FL, 2013 WL 5230355 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 16, 2013). [268]*268We also deny Gravelle’s motion for leave to supplement. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

561 F. App'x 267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gravelle-v-kaba-ilco-corp-ca4-2014.