Sun Life Assurance v. Tinsley, No. 07-1347 (4th Cir. 2008)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1347 SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA (US), Plaintiff, versus SANDRA TINSLEY, Defendant - Appellee, LOUIS A. SMITH, in his capacity as administrator of the estate of Evelyn Margaret Turner, deceased, Defendant - Appellant, and LOUISE G. SMITH, in her individual capacity, and in her capacity as co-administrator of the estate of Evelyn Margaret Turner, deceased; HUTCHERSON FUNERAL HOME, INCORPORATED, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (6:06-cv-00010-NKM) Submitted: December 14, 2007 Decided: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. January 8, 2008 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis A. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia, Appellee Pro Se. Sandra Tinsley, Lynchburg, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Louis A. Smith appeals the district court s order finding a change of beneficiary form ineffective and granting judgment for Sandra Tinsley in this civil action. We have reviewed the record, including the trial, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (US) v. Tinsley, No. 6:06-cv-00010-NKM (W.D. Va. Apr. 4, 2007). To the extent Smith alleges the district court was biased against him, he has failed to show grounds for relief. See 28 U.S.C. ยงยง 144, 455 (2000); Sine v. Local No. 922 Int l Bhd. of Teamsters, 882 F.2d 913, 914-15 (4th Cir. 1989) (giving standard for affidavit of recusal); Shaw v. Martin, 733 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1984) (providing basis for recusal on grounds of prejudice and bias). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 3 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.