The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
05-1306•Bennie Jay Eatmon v. B.d. Morgan, Incorporated
05-1306Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 20, 2005
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1306
BENNIE JAY EATMON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
B.D. MORGAN, INCORPORATED; BILLY D. MORGAN,
individually; E.L. ROSS, INCORPORATED; MACKIE
ROGERS, individually; BILLY ELLINGTON,
individually; PHIL HICKS, individually;
FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION; JOHN DOE;
JANE JANNELL DOE, RN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (CA-02-745-5-BO; CA-02-746-5-BO)
Submitted: October 3, 2005 Decided: October 20, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bennie Jay Eatmon, Appellant Pro Se. Franklin LeVerne Adams, Jr.,
VALENTINE, ADAMS & LAMAR, L.L.P., Nashville, North Carolina; Derek
Morgan Crump, BROWN, CRUMP, VANORE & TIERNEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina; Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
-- 1 of 3 --
- 2 -
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 2 of 3 --
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Bennie Jay Eatmon appeals the district court’s order
granting Defendants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings and for
summary judgment and dismissing his civil action. He also appeals
the district court’s denial of his subsequent motion for
reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district
court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Eatmon v. B.D.
Morgan, Inc., No. 5:02-CV-745-BO(3) (E.D.N.C. Mar. 16, 2004);
Eatmon v. B.D. Morgan, Inc., No. 5:02-CV-745-BO(3) (E.D.N.C.
Jan. 12, 2005). We deny Eatmon’s motion to stay. 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.