U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2017

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. B. Diane Tamariz-Wallace

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. B. Diane Tamariz-Wallace
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided February 16, 2017

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. B. Diane Tamariz-Wallace

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1405

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant – Appellee, v. B. DIANE TAMARIZ-WALLACE, Defendant/Counter Claimant – Appellant, and DIANE TAMARIZ & ASSOCIATES, P.A.; MORAN INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.; GEORGE T. MORAN, INC.; C. DAVID WALLACE, Defendants, and NATIONWIDE BANK; CORRIGAN INSURANCE, INC.; WILLIAM P. CORRIGAN, JR.; C.W. HAYES, III; CHARLENE E. HARDEE; SAMUEL BRADSHAW, IV; JOHN PAUL PURSSORD, Counter Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-00667-JFM)

Submitted: January 27, 2017 Decided: February 16, 2017

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew S. Grimsley, CARYN GROEDEL & ASSOCIATES CO., LPA, Cleveland, Ohio; John Singleton, SINGLETON LAW GROUP, PA, Lutherville, Maryland, for Appellant. Quintin F. Lindsmith, James P. Schuck, BRICKER & ECKLER, LLP, Columbus, Ohio; Patricia McHugh Lambert, PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: B. Diane Tamariz-Wallace appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion to reopen the lawsuit between her and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., which was administratively closed after Tamariz-Wallace filed her petition for relief in bankruptcy. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Providence Hall Assoc. Ltd. P’ship v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 816 F.3d 273 (4th Cir. 2016).

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

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