ReliaStar Life Insurance Co v. John Laschkewitsch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for leave to file [999538597-2]. Originating case number: 5:13-cv-00210-BO. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999543657]. Mailed to: John Laschkewitsch. [14-2020, 14-2182]

Appeal: 14-2020

Doc: 32

Filed: 03/11/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2020

RELIASTAR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN B. LASCHKEWITSCH,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-2182

RELIASTAR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN B. LASCHKEWITSCH,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:13-cv-00210-BO)

Submitted:

February 27, 2015

Decided:

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

March 11, 2015

Appeal: 14-2020

Doc: 32

Filed: 03/11/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John B. Laschkewitsch, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher J. Blake,
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Raleigh, North
Carolina; Hutson Brit Smelley, EDISON MCDOWELL & HETHERINGTON,
LLP, Houston, Texas, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-2020

Doc: 32

Filed: 03/11/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
John B. Laschkewitsch appeals the district court’s orders
granting summary judgment to ReliaStar Life Insurance Company
(“ReliaStar”) in his civil action, denying his motion to amend,
and granting costs and attorney’s fees to ReliaStar.
Laschkewitsch
related

to

asserts

the

multiple

admission

of

errors

evidence,

by

the

fraud,

On appeal,

district

court

contestability,

unfair trade and settlement practices, and breach of contract.
We affirm.
We review a district court’s grant of 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, 775 F.3d 202,

208 (4th Cir. 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.”

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.

Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (internal quotation
marks omitted).

“The nonmoving party cannot create a genuine
3

Appeal: 14-2020

Doc: 32

Filed: 03/11/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

issue of material fact through mere speculation or the building
of one inference upon another,” Othentec Ltd. v. Phelan, 526
F.3d

135,

omitted),

140
and

(4th

Cir.

“cannot

2008)

defeat

(internal

summary

quotation

judgment

with

marks

merely

a

scintilla of evidence,” Am. Arms Int’l v. Herbert, 563 F.3d 78,
82 (4th Cir. 2009).

Rather, it “must produce some evidence

(more than a 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 (internal

quotation marks omitted).
We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, and we
conclude that the district court did not err.
affirm

for

the

reasons

stated

by

the

Accordingly, we

district

court.

See

ReliaStar Life Ins. Co. v. Laschkewitsch, No. 5:13-cv-00210-BO
(E.D.N.C.

May

28,

2014

&

Sept.

25,

2014).

We

deny

Laschkewitsch’s motion to submit new evidence and dispense with
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4