Madison Capital Company LLC v. Joseph Miller, IV, No. 10-1175 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1175 MADISON CAPITAL COMPANY LLC; MADISON FORT LAUDERDALE, LLC, Plaintiffs Appellees, v. JOSEPH H. MILLER, IV, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:08-cv-01563-PMD) Argued: March 25, 2011 Decided: May 26, 2011 Before KING, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: Clayton B. McCullough, PRATT-THOMAS WALKER, PA, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Bryson Moore Geer, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Jennifer H. Thiem, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: In this diversity action to enforce a personal guarantee of a business Miller, loan IV, obligation, appeals the Defendant district guarantor court s award Joseph of H. summary judgment to Plaintiff lender Madison Capital Company LLC, joined on appeal by its Lauderdale, LLC. post-judgment assignee, Madison Fort Miller asserts in the main that the district court misconstrued the governing law of New York and the duties and obligations thereby imposed in connection with the Loan Agreement and Guaranty of Payment executed by the parties to the underlying transaction. error, Miller In addition to his contentions of legal maintains that the district court improperly resolved genuine issues of material fact in Madison s favor and ignored meritorious equitable defenses that should have precluded the entry of summary judgment against him. With respect to one equitable defense that Miller now contends the district court ignored (an alleged violation of his due process rights), Miller failed to preserve appellate review by presenting the defense in the district court. Generally, issues that were not raised in the district court will not be addressed on appeal. See Holland v. Big River Minerals Corp., 181 F.3d 597, 605 (4th Cir. 1999). Miller s due process contention 2 for As a result, we review plain error only. See Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. Datanet Eng g, Inc., 369 F.3d 385, 396-97 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Having carefully parties written counsel, we examined submissions discern no the record together reversible with error. and the We assessed argument are the of therefore content to affirm the judgment of the district court for the cogent reasons spelled out in its memorandum Order of September 22, 2009 excepting, of course, the unpreserved due process contention that was not presented to the court and which fails See Madison Capital Co., LLC, v. to survive plain error review. Miller, No. 2:08-cv-1563, 2009 WL 3065205 (D.S.C. Sept. 22, 2009). 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.
