Contracts · MBE-tested
IN RE: Wellesley K. CLAYTON, Wellesley K. Clayton, Debtor-Appellant, v. M&T Bank, Creditor-Appellee, and A. Burton Shuford, Trustee-Appellee
671 F. App'x 80·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·2016
Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
IN RE: Wellesley K. CLAYTON, Wellesley K. Clayton, Debtor-Appellant, v. M&T Bank, Creditor-Appellee, and A. Burton Shuford, Trustee-Appellee.
No. 16-1714
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 22, 2016
Decided: November 29, 2016
Wellesley K. Clayton, Appellant Pro Se. Lacey Meredith Moore, Hutchens Law Firm, Charlotte, North Carolina; Allen Burton Shuford, Mint Hill, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
[MAJORITY — ' PER CURIAM:]
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
' PER CURIAM:
Wellesley K. Clayton appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of a prior order dismissing as untimely his appeal from the bankruptcy court. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Clayton v. M&T Bank, Nos. 3:16-cv-00018-RJC; 15-30573 (W.D.N.C. May 24, 2016). We deny Clayton’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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