Haywood Clayton v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2011
HAYWOOD CLAYTON; SYLVIA K. CLAYTON,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
LAWRENCE S. MAITIN; MORRIS, SCHNEIDER &
PRIOR, LLC,
Defendants.
No. 05-2346
HAYWOOD CLAYTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
SYLVIA K. CLAYTON,
Plaintiff,

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
versus
AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
LAWRENCE S. MAITIN; MORRIS, SCHNEIDER &
PRIOR, LLC,
Defendants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CA-02-415-1)
Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: February 28, 2006
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Haywood Clayton, Sylvia K. Clayton, Appellants Pro Se. Dena Beth
Langley, Stuart Carlen Gauffreau, NEXSEN PRUET ADAMS KLEEMEIER,
PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina; Angel R. Gordon, MORRIS,
SCHNEIDER & PRIOR, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
In appeal No. 05-2011, Haywood Clayton and Sylvia K.
Clayton appeal from the district court’s order denying their
motions for a stay, for change of venue, and to vacate orders of
the district court. In appeal No. 05-2346, Haywood Clayton appeals
from the district court’s orders granting Ameriquest’s motions for
an order to show cause and for a prefiling injunction. We have
reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. See Clayton v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., No.
CA-02-415-1 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 24, 2005 & Oct. 26, 2005). We deny
Ameriquest’s motion for sanctions and motion to dismiss appeal No.
05-2011. 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 --