NELSON S. CHASE, Esq. v. Brian Knight, jointly and severally

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1382
NELSON S. CHASE, Esq.,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRIAN KNIGHT, jointly and severally,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
LOP CAPITAL LLC, jointly and severally; STRATEGIC LENDING
SOLUTIONS LLC, jointly and severally; MICHAEL LOPRIENO, jointly and
severally,
Defendants.
No. 17-1395
NELSON S. CHASE, Esq.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRIAN KNIGHT, jointly and severally; LOP CAPITAL LLC, jointly and
severally; STRATEGIC LENDING SOLUTIONS LLC, jointly and severally;
MICHAEL LOPRIENO, jointly and severally,
Defendants - Appellees.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
No. 17-1871
NELSON S. CHASE, Esq.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRIAN KNIGHT, jointly and severally; LOP CAPITAL LLC, jointly and
severally; MICHAEL LOPRIENO, jointly and severally; STRATEGIC LENDING
SOLUTIONS LLC, jointly and severally,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:13-cv-00162-BHH)
Submitted: February 28, 2018 Decided: May 9, 2018
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nelson S. Chase, Appellant/Appellee Pro Se. Brian Knight, Appellee/Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Nelson Chase and Brian Knight separately appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge in part and denying Chase’s
motion to compel settlement. Chase also appeals the district court’s order denying his
motions for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Chase v. LOP Capital LLC, No. 2:13-cv-00162-BHH (D.S.C. Feb. 27,
2017; June 26, 2017). We grant Knight’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 --