Richard Bannerman v. Mountain State Pawn, Inc, No. 10-2397 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2397 RICHARD BANNERMAN; TRICIA BANNERMAN; JESSE BRYAN; PAMELA BRYAN; SHAWN FOSTER; MELISSA FOSTER; WILLIAM GARDNER; SHELLIE GARDNER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. MOUNTAIN STATE PAWN, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Famous Pawnbrokers/Jewelry & Loan, a West Virginia corporation, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:10-cv-00046-JPB) Submitted: June 10, 2011 Decided: June 27, 2011 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul G. Taylor, LAW OFFICES OF PAUL G. TAYLOR, PLLC, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellants. Michael D. Lorensen, Jared M. Adams, BOWLES, RICE, MCDAVID, GRAFF & LOVE PLLC, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Appellants Richard and Tricia Bannerman, Jesse and Pamela Bryan, Shawn and Melissa Foster, and William and Shellie Gardner, husbands and wives, sued Mountain State Pawn, Inc., d/b/a Famous Pawnbrokers/Jewelry & Loan ( Mountain State ), for injuries the men sustained during a shooting that occurred at the Quality Inn and Conference Center in Jefferson County, West Virginia. The shooter, a convicted felon, had purchased the pistol at issue from Mountain State, and Appellants alleged that the illegal sale of a firearm to a convicted felon proximately caused their injuries. As noted by the district court, Appellants action was barred by the statute of limitations. Control Act, under 18 U.S.C. Moreover, neither the Gun § 922(d)(1) (2006), nor the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act ( PLCAA ), 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901 (2006) et. seq., provided Appellants with a civil cause of action. the Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons as stated by district court in its thorough opinion on the matter. Bannerman v. Mountain State Pawn, Inc., No. 3:10-cv-00046-JPB (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 5, 2010). 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 2

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.