Timothy Redmond v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:12-cv-00258-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999521432]. [14-1618]

Appeal: 14-1618

Doc: 25

Filed: 02/02/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1618

TIMOTHY REDMOND; COLLEEN REDMOND,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (7:12-cv-00258-BO)

Submitted:

January 23, 2015

Before SHEDD and
Circuit Judge.

AGEE,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

February 2, 2015

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aaron D. Radbil, GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC, Boca Raton, Florida,
for Appellants. Robert R. Marcus, Heather C. White, SMITH MOORE
LEATHERWOOD LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1618

Doc: 25

Filed: 02/02/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Appellants Timothy Redmond and Colleen Redmond appeal
the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to the
Defendant and denying reconsideration in their civil action.

On

appeal, they contend that the district court erred in holding
that only “consumers” have standing to bring a claim under the
North Carolina Debt Collection Act and in finding that they are
not consumers as defined in the Act.

We affirm.

We review whether a district court erred in granting
summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standards as
the district court and viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party.

Walker v. Mod-U-Kraf Homes,

LLC, __ F.3d __, 2014 WL 7273031, *3 (4th Cir. Dec. 23, 2014).
The district court must enter summary judgment “against a party
who

fails

to

make

a

showing

sufficient

to

establish

the

existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on
which

that

party

will

bear

the

burden

of

proof

at

trial.”

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
“Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a
rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there
is no genuine issue for trial.”
Zenith

Radio

Corp.,

475

U.S.

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
574,

internal quotation marks omitted).

587

(1986)

(citation

and

“The nonmoving party cannot

create a genuine issue of material fact through mere speculation
2

Appeal: 14-1618

Doc: 25

Filed: 02/02/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

or the building of one inference upon another,” Othentec Ltd. v.
Phelan, 526 F.3d 135, 140 (4th Cir. 2008) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted), and he cannot defeat summary judgment
with merely a scintilla of evidence, Am. Arms Int’l v. Herbert,
563 F.3d 78, 82 (4th Cir. 2009).
evidence

(more

than

a

Rather, he “must produce some

scintilla)

upon

which

a

jury

could

properly proceed to find a verdict for the party producing it,
upon whom the onus of proof is imposed.”

Othentec Ltd., 526

F.3d at 140 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs,
and we conclude that the district court did not err in granting
summary judgment to the Defendant and denying reconsideration.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

See Redmond v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, No. 7:12-cv-

00258-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 27, 2014; Apr. 3, 2014; June 10, 2014);
see also Ross v. FDIC, 625 F.3d 808 (4th Cir. 2010); Green Tree
Servicing LLC v. Locklear, 763 S.E.2d 523 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014).
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3