Ballentine v. James B. Nutter & Co.

670 F. App'x 776 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 21, 2016

Full text

Lynton BALLENTINE v. JAMES B. NUTTER & COMPANY Hutchens Law Firm, LP Jonathan Caleb Rogers Shann Rose Schmidt Claire Collins North Carolina Housing Finance Agency Holly Robinson Surety Insurance Company Karen Bumgardner

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lynton Ballentine appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ballentine v. James B. Nutter & Co., No. 3:15-cv-00496-FDW-DSC, 2016 WL 3095224 (W.D.N.C. June 1, 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

Notice

Freecase is a legal research tool. It does not determine whether a case is good law and does not provide legal advice.

Metadata

Status: Published
Author
Judges: Gregory, Motz, Traxler
Cluster ID: 8698127

Citations

670 F. App'x 776

Cited by

Pekin Insurance Company v. Innovative Coatings and Materials, L.L.C.
W.D. North Carolina · May 11, 2020

Parentheticals

“[l]ack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time either by a litigant or the court.”
Pekin Insurance Company v. Innovative Coatings and Materials, L.L.C.

Freecase.ai provides legal information for educational and research purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Always consult a licensed attorney for legal guidance. Terms of Service