Mebane v. Phoenix Companies

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 17, 2004
Docket03-2302
StatusUnpublished

This text of Mebane v. Phoenix Companies (Mebane v. Phoenix Companies) 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
Mebane v. Phoenix Companies, (4th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-2302

ELIZABETH MEBANE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THE PHOENIX COMPANIES, INCORPORATED; PHOENIX HOME LIFE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a/k/a Phoenix Life Insurance Company,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-03-195-1)

Submitted: March 11, 2004 Decided: March 17, 2004

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter T. Johnson, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF WALTER T. JOHNSON, JR., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. William E. Freeman, John A. Zaloom, MOORE & VAN ALLEN, P.L.L.C., Durham, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Elizabeth Mebane appeals the district court’s order

dismissing her breach of contract action as untimely under the

statute of limitations. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Absent exceptional circumstances not present

here, issues not raised before the district court are beyond the

scope of appellate review. Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250

(4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. See Mebane v. Phoenix Companies, Inc., No. CA-

03-195-1 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 16, 2003). 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

- 2 -

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

Related

D.P. Muth J.P. Muth v. United States
1 F.3d 246 (Fourth Circuit, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Mebane v. Phoenix Companies, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mebane-v-phoenix-companies-ca4-2004.