Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
14-1392•Kaysheila Rains Wade; Henry L. Wade v. Chase Bank, USA Na
14-1392Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit29.09.2014
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1392
KAYSHEILA RAINS WADE; HENRY L. WADE,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
CHASE BANK, USA NA; FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION;
CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC; IBM LENDER BUSINESS PROCESS
SERVICE, d/b/a Seterus Incorporated,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (2:12-cv-03565-RMG)
Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 29, 2014
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kaysheila Rains Wade, Henry L. Wade, Appellants Pro Se. James Y.
Becker, Emily H. Farr, Hamilton Osborne, Jr., HAYNSWORTH,
SINKLER & BOYD, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Brian Cantwell
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Duffy, Joseph Rutledge Young, III, DUFFY & YOUNG, LLC,
Charleston, South Carolina; Shanon J. McGinnis, Shawna Marie
Portner, WARGO & FRENCH, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Susan B. Shaw,
RCO LEGAL PS, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Kaysheila Rains Wade and Henry L. Wade appeal the
district court’s orders granting summary judgment to the
Defendants in the Wades’ civil action regarding payment on an
insurance claim. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Wade v. Chase Bank, No. 2:12-cv-03565-
RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 24, 2014). 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.