National Capital Management, L v. Lashauna Chante Gammage-Lewi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:10-cv-00468-F,09-04522-8-JRL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999124130].. [12-2286]

Appeal: 12-2286

Doc: 28

Filed: 06/06/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2286

NATIONAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Creditor - Appellant,
v.
LASHAUNA CHANTE GAMMAGE-LEWIS,
Debtor – Appellee,
and
JOHN F. LOGAN,
Trustee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:10-cv-00468-F; 09-04522-8-JRL)

Submitted:

May 31, 2013

Decided:

June 6, 2013

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew J. McGowan, SALTER MCGOWAN SYLVIA & LEONARD, INC.,
Providence, Rhode Island; Paige C. Kurtz, SPROUSE & KURTZ, PLLC,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Joseph A. Bledsoe, III,
THE BLEDSOE LAW FIRM, P.C., Fayetteville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Appeal: 12-2286

Doc: 28

Filed: 06/06/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-2286

Doc: 28

Filed: 06/06/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
National
district

Capital

court’s

Management,

order

affirming

LLC,
the

appeals

from

bankruptcy

the

court’s

determination that its security interest became void after the
court allowed the bankruptcy trustee’s objection to its claim
and

granted

a

discharge

in

LaShauna

Chapter 13 bankruptcy case.

Chante

Gammage-Lewis’

We have reviewed the record on

appeal and the briefs filed by the parties, and we find no
reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.
Lewis,
dispense

No.

5:10-cv-00468-F

with

contentions

Nat’l Capital Mgt., LLC v. Gammage-

are

oral

(E.D.N.C.

argument

adequately

Aug.

because

presented

in

the
the

14,
facts

2012).

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3