Arch Specialty Insurance Compa v. Travis Hedrick

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00621-TDS-JLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999642220].. [14-2392]

Appeal: 14-2392

Doc: 29

Filed: 08/18/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2392

ARCH SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TRAVIS HEDRICK,
Defendant – Appellant,
and
TALLEY RESTAURANTS, INC., d/b/a Inferno,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00621-TDS-JLW)

Submitted:

July 31, 2015

Before WYNN and
Circuit Judge.

DIAZ,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

August 18, 2015

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary K. Sue, Stephanie W. Anderson, BURTON, SUE & ANDERSON,
L.L.P.,
Greensboro,
North
Carolina;
Douglas
S.
Harris,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Steven G. Janik,
Crystal L. Maluchnik, JANIK L.L.P., Cleveland, Ohio; Lovic A.
Brooks, III, JANIK L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina; Richard L.

Appeal: 14-2392

Doc: 29

Filed: 08/18/2015

Pinto, PINTO COATES KYRE
Carolina, for Appellee.

&

Pg: 2 of 3

BOWERS

PLLC,

Greensboro,

North

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-2392

Doc: 29

Filed: 08/18/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Travis Hedrick appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to Arch Specialty Insurance Company in this
insurance case.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the

record on appeal and find no reversible error.
affirm

for

Specialty

the
Ins.

reasons
Co.

v.

stated

by

Hedrick,

the
No.

Accordingly, we

district

court.

Arch

1:13-cv-00621-TDS-JLW

(M.D.N.C. Nov. 21, 2014); see also Britt v. Hayes, 541 S.E.2d
761, 762 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001) (holding that claims of battery
and negligence are compatible).

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