Mary Lou Button v. KEVIN K. CHUMNEY; JANET L. CHUMNEY, husband and wife; CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA, LLC

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1752
MARY LOU BUTTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KEVIN K. CHUMNEY; JANET L. CHUMNEY, husband and wife;
CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA, LLC,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
WILLIAM H. GASTON; DIANE MARKET GASTON, husband and wife,
Defendants.
No. 14-1777
MARY LOU BUTTON,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA, LLC,
Defendant – Appellant,
KEVIN K. CHUMNEY; JANET L. CHUMNEY, husband and wife,
Defendants – Appellees,
and

-- 1 of 3 --

2
WILLIAM H. GASTON; DIANE MARKET GASTON, husband and wife,
Defendants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00232-IMK-JSK)
Submitted: September 29, 2015 Decided: October 19, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
No. 14-1752 affirmed; No. 14-1777 dismissed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
George B. Armistead, BAKER & ARMISTEAD, PLLC, Morgantown, West
Virginia, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee Mary Lou Button. John B.
Brooks, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN B. BROOKS, PLLC, Morgantown, West
Virginia, for Appellees Kevin K. Chumney and Janet L. Chumney.
W. Henry Lawrence, IV, Amy Marie Smith, Lauren Alise Williams,
STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC, Bridgeport, West Virginia, for
Appellee/Cross-Appellant Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Mary Lou Button appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC (“Chesapeake”),
but denying Chesapeake’s cross-claim, in Button’s civil action
regarding the tax foreclosure sale of her property. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Button
v. Chumney, No. 1:13-cv-00232-IMK-JSK (N.D. W. Va. June 27,
2014). Because we affirm the district court’s grant of summary
judgment, we dismiss as moot Chesapeake’s cross-appeal of the
same order. 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.
No. 14-1752 AFFIRMED
No. 14-1777 DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --