Gregory Bader v. Creighton Sossomon

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:09-cv-00049-MR-DLH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998692862].. [11-1080]

Appeal: 11-1080

Document: 35

Date Filed: 10/04/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1080

GREGORY BADER,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CREIGHTON WOLFE SOSSOMON,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Bryson City.
Martin K.
Reidinger, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00049-MR-DLH)

Submitted:

September 29, 2011

Decided:

October 4, 2011

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Creighton W. Sossomon, Highland, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Mark C. Kurdys, ROBERTS & STEVENS, P.A., Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-1080

Document: 35

Date Filed: 10/04/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Creighton Wolfe Sossomon appeals the district court’s
order

granting

enforcement

of

a

settlement

agreement

between

Sossomon and Gregory Bader and its order denying his motion to
amend the court’s judgment enforcing that agreement.

On appeal,

Sossomon argues that the district court erred in enforcing the
agreement because its terms were not sufficiently clear, full
payment was not yet due, and the court failed to conduct a
plenary hearing.

Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

“We review [a] district court’s findings of fact for
clear error and its decision whether to enforce a settlement
agreement

for

Laboratories,

abuse
Inc.,

of

277

discretion.”

F.3d

535,

541

Hensley
(4th

Cir.

v.

Alcon

2002).

We

review the denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion as well for
abuse of discretion, Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., LLC, 599
F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010).
power

to

enforce

a

settlement

“[T]o exercise its inherent
agreement,

a

district

court

(1) must find that the parties reached a complete agreement and
(2) must be able to determine its terms and conditions.”
540-41.

Id. at

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion

in

finding

that

the

parties

reached

a

complete

agreement with clear and unambiguous terms and conditions and in
ordering

full

payment

in

compliance

with

that

agreement.

Further, we find Sossomon’s contention that he did not receive a
2

Appeal: 11-1080

Document: 35

Date Filed: 10/04/2011

Page: 3 of 3

plenary hearing without merit, as the district court did, in
fact, schedule two hearings, one of which Sossomon failed to
attend.
Accordingly,
We

dispense

with

oral

we

affirm

argument

the

district

because

the

court’s
facts

orders.

and

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3