Continental Casualty Company v. Jeff F. Curran, III

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for stay pending appeal [1000086894-2]; denying Motion for John F. Jef Curran, III to represent Gargoyles, Inc. [1000106960-2] Originating case number: 1:14-cv-01183-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000185380]. Mailed to: John F. Curran III; John E. Howell; William E. Smith. [17-1618]

Appeal: 17-1618

Doc: 27

Filed: 11/02/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1618

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GARGOYLES, INC.; JOHN F. CURRAN, III,
Defendants - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-01183-JFM)

Submitted: October 25, 2017

Decided: November 2, 2017

Before KING, SHEDD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John F. Curran, III, Appellant Pro Se. Ashley Elisabeth Eiler, John E. Howell, William
E. Smith, WILEY REIN, LLP, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-1618

Doc: 27

Filed: 11/02/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Proceeding pro se, John F. Curran, III, seeks to appeal on behalf of himself and
Gargoyles, Inc., the district court’s order denying his post-judgment motion to vacate
judgment and stay proceedings against Gargoyles, Inc. Curran has also moved on appeal
to stay proceedings and represent Gargoyles, Inc. However, Gargoyles, Inc., may only
proceed in federal court through licensed counsel. See Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony,
Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-03 (1993); In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d
276, 290 n.17 (4th Cir. 2014). We therefore dismiss the appeal as to Gargoyles, Inc. As
to Curran, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
deny his pending motions and affirm the district court’s order. See Continental Cas. Co.
v. Gargoyles, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-01183-JFM (D. Md. May 2, 2017). 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.

DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

2