STANLEY MARVIN CAMPBELL, Trustee in Bankruptcy for ESA Environmental Specialist, Inc. v. Houlihan Smith & Company, Inc.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1988
STANLEY MARVIN CAMPBELL, Trustee in Bankruptcy for ESA
Environmental Specialist, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
and
PROSPECT CAPITAL CORPORATION,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HOULIHAN SMITH & COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
NATHAN M. BENDER; ADKISSON, SHERBERT & ASSOCIATES; CHARLES
J. COLE; JACOB COLE; SANDRA DEE COLE; DAVID C. EPPLING;
MICHAEL ANTHONY HABOWSKI; TRACEY HAWLEY; JOHN M. MITCHELL;
DENNIS M. MOLESEVICH; HOULIHAN SMITH; SHELTON SMITH;
SUNTRUST BANKS, INC.; CHERRY BEKAERT AND HOLLAND LLP; ELLIOT
& WARREN; CHESTER J. BANULL,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:09-cv-00465-MOC-DCK; 3:09-cv-00546-MOC-DCK;
3:07-bk-31532)
Submitted: July 27, 2015 Decided: September 18, 2015

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert C. Bowers, MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC, Charlotte, North
Carolina; Adam M. Burton, Karl C. Huth, IV, PROSPECT
ADMINISTRATION, LLC, New York, New York, for Appellant. Richard
P. Darke, DUANE MORRIS LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Prospect Capital Corporation appeals from the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and granting Houlihan Smith & Company, Inc.’s motion to
dismiss the claims against it and denying Prospect Capital’s
request for leave to amend the complaint. We have reviewed the
record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, and we find no
abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Prospect
Capital Corp. v. Houlihan Smith & Co., No. 3:09-cv-00465-MOC-DCK
(W.D.N.C. Aug. 20, 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 --