Mark Davis v. Mike Rutherford

Filing 402831566

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:09-cv-00096 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998353729] [10-1091]

Mark Davis v. Mike Rutherford

Doc. 402831566

Case: 10-1091

Document: 17

Date Filed: 06/07/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1091 MARK E. DAVIS; TAMMY L. DAVIS, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. REO AMERICA, INCORPORATED, a Florida corporation, and any and all persons; REBUILD AMERICA, INCORPORATED, a Florida Corporation, Defendants ­ Appellees, and MIKE RUTHERFORD, Sheriff of Kanawha County; VERA MCCORMICK, Clerk of the County Commission of Kanawha County; 100 JOHN DOES, having or claiming any interest in real estate identified as 51 Woodbridge Drive, Charleston, West Virginia, Defendants, v. HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, N.A., Movant ­ Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (2:09-cv-00096) Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 7, 2010

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-1091

Document: 17

Date Filed: 06/07/2010

Page: 2

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Philip Brown Hereford, HEREFORD & HEREFORD, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Mark E. Davis, Tammy L. Davis, Appellees Pro Se; James William Lane, Jr., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Case: 10-1091

Document: 17

Date Filed: 06/07/2010

Page: 3

PER CURIAM: Huntington National Bank appeals from the district

court's order denying its request for attorneys fees following the improper removal of the underlying proceeding. Because

Huntington was not a party to the proceedings in district court, the court acted within its discretion in denying Huntington's motion for attorney fees. of Animals v. Doughney, See People for the Ethical Treatment 263 F.3d 359, 370 (4th Cir. 2001)

(providing standard of review). find no reversible error.

We have reviewed the record and Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court.

Davis v. Rutherford, No.

2:09-cv-00096 (S.D. W. Va. filed Oct. 6, 2009 & entered Oct. 8, 2009). legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process. AFFIRMED

3