Richard Neely v. Mark Zimmer, No. 12-2150 (4th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2150 RICHARD NEELY, individually; Virginia Partnership, NEELY & CALLAGHAN, a West Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. MARK ZIMMER, individually and as Trustee of the Zimmer Survivor Trust; and as Executor of the Estate of Norma Zimmer; RONALD ZIMMER, individually; THE ZIMMER SURVIVOR TRUST, a California Trust, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (2:11-cv-00444) Submitted: September 5, 2013 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. WYNN, Circuit Decided: Judges, and October 31, 2013 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard F. Neely, NEELY & CALLAGHAN, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants. Robert E. Adel, GREENBERG TRAURIG, Irvine, California; Grant P. H. Shuman, SPILMAN, THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: In Neely this and case Neely involving and an Callaghan, attorney-fee a West dispute, Virginia Richard partnership, appeal from the district court s grant of summary judgment in favor of Mark Zimmer, individually, as trustee of the Zimmer Survivor Trust, and as executor of the estate of Norma Zimmer; Ronald Zimmer, individually; and the Zimmer Survivor Trust, a California trust. Richard Neely and the partnership of Neely and Callaghan also appeal from the district court s denial of their motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment. Having carefully reviewed the briefs, the record, and the relevant law, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Neely v. Zimmer, No. 2:11-cv-00444, (S.D.W.Va. Sept. 10, 2012) (denial of Rule 59(e) motion); Neely v. Zimmer, No. 2:11-cv00444, 2012 WL 3198557 (S.D.W.Va. August 2, 2012) (grant of summary judgment). 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.