James Ronald Peggs v. Brian Shipwash

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00278-RJC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999959040]. Mailed to: Peggs. [16-1363]

Appeal: 16-1363

Doc: 30

Filed: 11/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1363

JAMES RONALD PEGGS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRIAN SHIPWASH; DAVID WILSON & ROSSABI BLACK SLAUGHTER,
P.A.; ARRON B. ANDERSON TRUSTEE SERVICE OF CAROLINA LLC;
BROCK & SCOTT, PLLC; US BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
a/k/a US Bank National Association; WELLS FARGO HOME
MORTGAGE, a/k/a Wells Fargo Bank Association; SURETY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cv-00278-RJC)

Submitted:

October 21, 2016

Before SHEDD and
Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

November 1, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Ronald Peggs, Appellant Pro Se.
Kathryn Hicks Shields,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Emily
Jeffords Meister, Jennifer Lynn Reutter, BLACK SLAUGHTER &
BLACK, P.A., Greensboro, North Carolina; Franklin Lamont Greene,
BROCK & SCOTT, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; B. Chad Ewing,

Appeal: 16-1363

Doc: 30

Filed: 11/01/2016

WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE
Carolina, for Appellees.

&

Pg: 2 of 3

RICE,

PLLC,

Charlotte,

North

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1363

Doc: 30

Filed: 11/01/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
James
dismissing

Ronald
his

Peggs

civil

appeals

complaint

the
for

district
lack

of

court’s
subject

order
matter

jurisdiction and a subsequent order denying reconsideration.
have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

reversible

We

error.

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

Peggs v. Shipwash, No. 3:15-cv-00278-RJC (W.D.N.C. Mar.

3, 2016; Mar. 30, 2016).

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