Jones v. Luthi

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedApril 29, 2009
Docket08-1762
StatusUnpublished

This text of Jones v. Luthi (Jones v. Luthi) 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
Jones v. Luthi, (4th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1762

CHRISTOPHER BERNARD JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PERRY S. LUTHI, SR.; DESMINE SARDINE; LUTHI MORTGAGE COMPANY, INCORPORATED; CAROLINA TAX SERVICE; LUTHI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; LIBERTY FUNDING; GENERAL FUNDING; PERRY S. LUTHI, JR.; MARTHA PACE; LORI MURPHY; CAROL A. SIMPSON; IRA HANDY; HANDY MOISTURE & PEST CONTROL; PETE PETERSON; RON PLATT; MARSHA PLATT; SONNY NINAN; MICHAEL DOE; DEE DEE DOE; KIM DOE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (6:06-cv-02202-PMD)

Submitted: March 31, 2009 Decided: April 29, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Bernard Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Melvin Hutson, MELVIN HUTSON, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Carol A. Simpson, Ron Platt, Marsha Platt, Greenville, South Carolina; Ira Handy, Taylors, South Carolina, Appellees Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Christopher Bernard Jones appeals the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying his motion for summary judgment and granting summary

judgment in favor of all defendants on his federal civil claims

and dismissing his state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)

(2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. Jones v. Luthi, No. 6:06-cv-02202-PMD (D.S.C.

June 10, 2008). We deny Jones’ motion for appointment of

counsel. 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

Related

Supplemental jurisdiction
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jones v. Luthi, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-luthi-ca4-2009.