Stephen Sterner v. Woodforest National Bank

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00229-MR-DLH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999460952]. Mailed to: Sterner. [14-1683, 14-1684]

Appeal: 14-1683

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/23/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1683

STEPHEN G. STERNER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WOODFOREST NATIONAL BANK; BRYAN ABRAHAM, Woodforest National
Bank Representative; LISA COTTON, Woodforest National Bank
Ex. Vice President,
Defendants - Appellees.

No. 14-1684

STEPHEN GEORGE STERNER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WOODFOREST NATIONAL BANK; WOODFOREST BANK,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00229-MR-DLH; 1:14-cv-00092-MR-DLH)

Submitted:

October 21, 2014

Decided:

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

October 23, 2014

Appeal: 14-1683

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/23/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen G. Sterner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-1683

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/23/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
In

these

consolidated

appeals,

Stephen

G.

Sterner

challenges the district court’s orders denying his motion to
amend his complaint in the action underlying Appeal No. 14-1684,
and

denying

court’s

his

orders:

motion
(1)

for

reconsideration

dismissing

the

actions

appeals; and (2) denying his motion to amend.
the record and find no reversible error.

of

the

district

underlying

both

We have reviewed

Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court.

See Sterner v.

Woodforest Nat’l Bank, Nos. 1:13-cv-00229-MR-DLH, 1:14-cv-00092MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. June 17, 2014; July 3, 2014).

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3