Mark Davis v. Mike Rutherford, No. 10-1091 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1091 MARK E. DAVIS; TAMMY L. DAVIS, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. REO AMERICA, INCORPORATED, a Florida corporation, and any and all persons; REBUILD AMERICA, INCORPORATED, a Florida Corporation, Defendants Appellees, and MIKE RUTHERFORD, Sheriff of Kanawha County; VERA MCCORMICK, Clerk of the County Commission of Kanawha County; 100 JOHN DOES, having or claiming any interest in real estate identified as 51 Woodbridge Drive, Charleston, West Virginia, Defendants, v. HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, N.A., Movant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (2:09-cv-00096) Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 7, 2010 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Philip Brown Hereford, HEREFORD & HEREFORD, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Mark E. Davis, Tammy L. Davis, Appellees Pro Se; James William Lane, Jr., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Huntington National Bank appeals from the district court s order denying its request for attorneys fees following the improper removal of the underlying proceeding. Because Huntington was not a party to the proceedings in district court, the court acted within its discretion in denying Huntington s See People for the Ethical Treatment motion for attorney fees. of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F.3d (providing standard of review). find no reversible error. 359, 370 (4th Cir. 2001) We have reviewed the record and Accordingly, reasons stated by the district court. we affirm for the Davis v. Rutherford, No. 2:09-cv-00096 (S.D. W. Va. filed Oct. 6, 2009 & entered Oct. 8, 2009). legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.