Andrew Taylor v. Ronald Davi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to supplement record [999556381-2] Originating case number: 2:13-cv-02717-RMG,11-07525-dd,12-80034-dd Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999606394]. Mailed to: Ronald Davis, Jr.. [14-2043]

Appeal: 14-2043

Doc: 46

Filed: 06/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2043

ANDREW TAYLOR; NAOMI TAYLOR,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
RONALD JEFFERSON DAVIS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (2:13-cv-02717-RMG)

Submitted:

June 18, 2015

Decided:

June 22, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Jefferson Davis, Appellant Pro Se.
W. Andrew Gowder,
Jr., PRATT-THOMAS WALKER, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2043

Doc: 46

Filed: 06/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Ronald
court’s

Jefferson

order

Davis,

adopting

recommendation

and

the

Jr.,

appeals

magistrate

upholding

the

from

the

judge’s

district

report

bankruptcy

and

court’s

determination that the debt he owes to Andrew and Naomi Taylor
is non-dischargeable in his bankruptcy case.
argues

only

that

the

Taylors

failed

to

On appeal, Davis
timely

file

the

certificate of service for the amended complaint and that the
bankruptcy

court

erred

by

denying

his

motion

to

strike

the

amended complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration of
that order.
record.

We grant the Taylors’ motion to supplement the

Upon review of the record, as supplemented, we find no

reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.

See Taylor v. Davis, No. 2:13-cv-02717-

RMG (D.S.C. Sept. 11, 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

2