U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2006

Clayton v. Ameriquest Mortgage

Clayton v. Ameriquest Mortgage
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided February 28, 2006

Clayton v. Ameriquest Mortgage

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-2011

HAYWOOD CLAYTON; SYLVIA K. CLAYTON, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus

AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee, and

LAWRENCE S. MAITIN; MORRIS, SCHNEIDER & PRIOR, LLC, Defendants.

No. 05-2346

HAYWOOD CLAYTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, and

SYLVIA K. CLAYTON, Plaintiff, versus AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee, and

LAWRENCE S. MAITIN; MORRIS, SCHNEIDER & PRIOR, LLC, Defendants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-02-415-1)

Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: February 28, 2006

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Haywood Clayton, Sylvia K. Clayton, Appellants Pro Se. Dena Beth Langley, Stuart Carlen Gauffreau, NEXSEN PRUET ADAMS KLEEMEIER, PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina; Angel R. Gordon, MORRIS, SCHNEIDER & PRIOR, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM: In appeal No. 05-2011, Haywood Clayton and Sylvia K.

Clayton appeal from the district court’s order denying their motions for a stay, for change of venue, and to vacate orders of the district court. In appeal No. 05-2346, Haywood Clayton appeals from the district court’s orders granting Ameriquest’s motions for an order to show cause and for a prefiling injunction. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Clayton v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., No. CA-02-415-1 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 24, 2005 & Oct. 26, 2005). We deny Ameriquest’s motion for sanctions and motion to dismiss appeal No. 05-2011. 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

- 3 -

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.