In re: Wellesley Clayton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999912297-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999958382-2], denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999956591-2] Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00018-RJC,15-30573 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999976692]. Mailed to: appellant. [16-1714]

Appeal: 16-1714

Doc: 22

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1714

In re:

WELLESLEY K. CLAYTON,

-----------------------------WELLESLEY K. CLAYTON,
Debtor - Appellant,
v.
M&T BANK,
Creditor – Appellee,
and
A. BURTON SHUFORD,
Trustee – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cv-00018-RJC; 15-30573)

Submitted:

November 22, 2016

Before DIAZ and
Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

November 29, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Appeal: 16-1714

Doc: 22

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Wellesley K. Clayton, Appellant Pro Se.
Lacey Meredith Moore,
HUTCHENS LAW FIRM, Charlotte, North Carolina; Allen Burton
Shuford, Mint Hill, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1714

Doc: 22

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Wellesley
denying

K.

his

Clayton

motion

appeals

for

the

district

reconsideration

of

court’s

order

prior

order

a

dismissing as untimely his appeal from the bankruptcy court.
have

reviewed

the

record

Accordingly,

although

pauperis,

affirm

court.

we

we
for

and
grant

the

find

no

reversible

leave

to

proceed

reasons

stated

by

error.

in

the

We

forma

district

Clayton v. M&T Bank, Nos. 3:16-cv-00018-RJC; 15-30573

(W.D.N.C.
appointment

May
of

24,

2016).

counsel

and

We
we

deny

Clayton’s

dispense

with

motion

oral

for

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