Prospect Capital Corporation v. Houlihan Smith & Company, Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:09-cv-00465-MOC-DCK,3:09-cv-00546-MOC-DCK,3:07-bk-31532 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999662691].. [14-1988]

Appeal: 14-1988

Doc: 49

Filed: 09/18/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1988

STANLEY MARVIN CAMPBELL, Trustee
Environmental Specialist, Inc.,

in

Bankruptcy

for

ESA

Plaintiff,
and
PROSPECT CAPITAL CORPORATION,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HOULIHAN SMITH & COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
NATHAN M. BENDER; ADKISSON, SHERBERT & ASSOCIATES; CHARLES
J. COLE; JACOB COLE; SANDRA DEE COLE; DAVID C. EPPLING;
MICHAEL ANTHONY HABOWSKI; TRACEY HAWLEY; JOHN M. MITCHELL;
DENNIS M. MOLESEVICH; HOULIHAN SMITH; SHELTON SMITH;
SUNTRUST BANKS, INC.; CHERRY BEKAERT AND HOLLAND LLP; ELLIOT
& WARREN; CHESTER J. BANULL,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge.
(3:09-cv-00465-MOC-DCK; 3:09-cv-00546-MOC-DCK;
3:07-bk-31532)

Submitted:

July 27, 2015

Decided:

September 18, 2015

Appeal: 14-1988

Doc: 49

Filed: 09/18/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert C. Bowers, MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC, Charlotte, North
Carolina;
Adam
M.
Burton,
Karl
C.
Huth,
IV,
PROSPECT
ADMINISTRATION, LLC, New York, New York, for Appellant. Richard
P. Darke, DUANE MORRIS LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-1988

Doc: 49

Filed: 09/18/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Prospect
court’s

order

Capital

Corporation

accepting

the

appeals

from

recommendation

of

the
the

district
magistrate

judge and granting Houlihan Smith & Company, Inc.’s motion to
dismiss the claims against it and denying Prospect Capital’s
request for leave to amend the complaint.

We have reviewed the

record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, and we find no
abuse of discretion and no reversible error.

Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Prospect

Capital Corp. v. Houlihan Smith & Co., No. 3:09-cv-00465-MOC-DCK
(W.D.N.C.

Aug.

20,

2014).

We

dispense

with

oral

argument

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

3