Nelson Chase v. Brian Knight, No. 17-1382 (4th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1382 NELSON S. CHASE, Esq., Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRIAN KNIGHT, jointly and severally, Defendant - Appellant, and LOP CAPITAL LLC, jointly and severally; STRATEGIC LENDING SOLUTIONS LLC, jointly and severally; MICHAEL LOPRIENO, jointly and severally, Defendants. No. 17-1395 NELSON S. CHASE, Esq., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BRIAN KNIGHT, jointly and severally; LOP CAPITAL LLC, jointly and severally; STRATEGIC LENDING SOLUTIONS LLC, jointly and severally; MICHAEL LOPRIENO, jointly and severally, Defendants - Appellees. No. 17-1871 NELSON S. CHASE, Esq., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BRIAN KNIGHT, jointly and severally; LOP CAPITAL LLC, jointly and severally; MICHAEL LOPRIENO, jointly and severally; STRATEGIC LENDING SOLUTIONS LLC, jointly and severally, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:13-cv-00162-BHH) Submitted: February 28, 2018 Decided: May 9, 2018 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nelson S. Chase, Appellant/Appellee Pro Se. Brian Knight, Appellee/Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Nelson Chase and Brian Knight separately appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge in part and denying Chase’s motion to compel settlement. Chase also appeals the district court’s order denying his motions for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Chase v. LOP Capital LLC, No. 2:13-cv-00162-BHH (D.S.C. Feb. 27, 2017; June 26, 2017). We grant Knight’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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.