Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Charles Houston, Jr. v. Berkeley Hall LLC, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views3 pages
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's rulings in a case brought by Charles Houston against Berkeley Hall LLC and other defendants. The district court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, denied Houston's motion to file responses late, granted sanctions against Houston for failing to ensure his client attended depositions, and denied Houston's motion to alter or amend the judgment. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error and affirmed the district court's rulings.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-10-14 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-2372

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's rulings in a case brought by Charles Houston against Berkeley Hall LLC and other defendants. The district court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, denied Houston's motion to file responses late, granted sanctions against Houston for failing to ensure his client attended depositions, and denied Houston's motion to alter or amend the judgment. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error and affirmed the district court's rulings.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    13 views3 pages

    Charles Houston, Jr. v. Berkeley Hall LLC, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's rulings in a case brought by Charles Houston against Berkeley Hall LLC and other defendants. The district court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, denied Houston's motion to file responses late, granted sanctions against Houston for failing to ensure his client attended depositions, and denied Houston's motion to alter or amend the judgment. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error and affirmed the district court's rulings.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-2372

    CHARLES E. HOUSTON, JR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    and
    MICHAEL L. WALTERS; JAYSON WILLIAMS,
    Plaintiffs,
    v.
    BERKELEY HALL LLC; ADRIAN MORRIS; MICHAEL CERRATI; BERKELEY
    HALL CLUB INC.,
    Defendants Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Beaufort.
    Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
    Judge. (9:13-cv-01352-SB)

    Submitted:

    September 30, 2015

    Decided:

    October 14, 2015

    Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Charles E. Houston, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.


    Keating L. Simons,
    III, SIMONS & DEAN, Charleston, South Carolina; Jerome Bennett
    Crites,
    III,
    SMITH
    MOORE
    LEATHERWOOD
    LLP,
    Charleston,

    South Carolina; Brian Pratt Robinson, BRUNER, POWELL, WALL &


    MULLINS, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles Edward Houston, Jr., appeals the district courts
    order granting Defendants motions for summary judgment, denying
    Houstons motion to file responses out of time, and granting
    sanctions

    against

    him

    for

    failing

    to

    ensure

    his

    client

    was

    present at his depositions and the order denying his motion to


    alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    We

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    court.

    Houston

    v.

    Berkeley

    Hall

    LLC,

    (D.S.C. Nov. 14, 2014; Nov. 25, 2014).

    No.

    9:13-cv-01352-SB

    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

    You might also like