McKinley v. CMH Homes, Inc.

Fourth Circuit

McKinley v. CMH Homes, Inc.

597 F. App'x 204

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 19, 2015

DocketNo. 14-2159

StatusPublished

This text of 597 F. App'x 204 (McKinley v. CMH Homes, Inc.) 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

McKinley v. CMH Homes, Inc., 597 F. App'x 204 (4th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rose McKinley appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s [205]*205summary judgment motion and dismissing her civil negligence suit as untimely under the South Carolina statute of limitations. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. McKinley v. CMH Homes, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-02982-CWH (D.S.C. Sept. 25, 2014). We grant McKinley permission to proceed in forma pauperis. We deny McKinley’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Rose McKinley appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s [205]*205summary judgment motion and dismissing her civil negligence suit as untimely under the South Carolina statute of limitations. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. McKinley v. CMH Homes, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-02982-CWH (D.S.C. Sept. 25, 2014). We grant McKinley permission to proceed in forma pauperis. We deny McKinley’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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)

597 F. App'x 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckinley-v-cmh-homes-inc-ca4-2015.