Charles Houston, Jr. v. Berkeley Hall LLC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 9:13-cv-01352-SB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999677374].. [14-2372]

Appeal: 14-2372

Doc: 42

Filed: 10/14/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2372

CHARLES E. HOUSTON, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
MICHAEL L. WALTERS; JAYSON WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BERKELEY HALL LLC; ADRIAN MORRIS; MICHAEL CERRATI; BERKELEY
HALL CLUB INC.,
Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (9:13-cv-01352-SB)

Submitted:

September 30, 2015

Decided:

October 14, 2015

Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles E. Houston, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Keating L. Simons,
III, SIMONS & DEAN, Charleston, South Carolina; Jerome Bennett
Crites,
III,
SMITH
MOORE
LEATHERWOOD
LLP,
Charleston,

Appeal: 14-2372

Doc: 42

Filed: 10/14/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

South Carolina; Brian Pratt Robinson, BRUNER, POWELL, WALL &
MULLINS, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-2372

Doc: 42

Filed: 10/14/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Charles Edward Houston, Jr., appeals the district court’s
order granting Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, denying
Houston’s motion to file responses out of time, and granting
sanctions

against

him

for

failing

to

ensure

his

client

was

present at his depositions and the order denying his motion to
alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

reversible

We

error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

Houston

v.

Berkeley

Hall

LLC,

(D.S.C. Nov. 14, 2014; Nov. 25, 2014).

No.

9:13-cv-01352-SB

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