Branch Banking and Trust Company v. Cathy G. Lanier; Randy D. Lanier

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1459
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CATHY G. LANIER; RANDY D. LANIER,
Defendants - Appellants,
and
TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:13-cv-01318-JFA)
Submitted: October 22, 2014 Decided: October 29, 2014
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cathy G. Lanier; Randy D. Lanier, Appellants Pro Se. Steven
Barry Licata, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Randy and Cathy Lanier (collectively, “the Laniers”)
appeal the district court’s judgment in favor of Branch Banking
& Trust Company (“BB&T Co.”) and its order denying their Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. We affirm.
First, the Laniers challenge the district court’s
jurisdiction over BB&T Co.’s action. We conclude that the
district court correctly found complete diversity among the
parties and, therefore, had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a) (2012). See United States ex rel. Vuyyuru v. Jadhav,
555 F.3d 337, 348 (4th Cir. 2009) (stating standard of review);
Hoschar v. Appalachian Power Co., 739 F.3d 163, 170-71 (4th Cir.
2014) (discussing diversity jurisdiction with regard to
corporations). Next, the Laniers suggest that the district
court judge displayed bias towards them, but the record does not
support their claim. See Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567,
573 (4th Cir. 2011) (providing standard).
Finally, after a careful review of the record, we hold
that the district court properly rejected the Laniers’ various
attempts to show that the promissory note and the mortgages
obligating them to BB&T Co. were invalid or unenforceable and to
challenge the amount of damages awarded by the district court.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court and its order denying reconsideration. We dispense with

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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 --