Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-01988/USCOURTS-ca4-14-01988-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 423
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Withdrawal 28 USC 157
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1988

STANLEY MARVIN CAMPBELL, Trustee in Bankruptcy for ESA 

Environmental Specialist, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

and

PROSPECT CAPITAL CORPORATION,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HOULIHAN SMITH & COMPANY, INC.,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

NATHAN M. BENDER; ADKISSON, SHERBERT & ASSOCIATES; CHARLES 

J. COLE; JACOB COLE; SANDRA DEE COLE; DAVID C. EPPLING; 

MICHAEL ANTHONY HABOWSKI; TRACEY HAWLEY; JOHN M. MITCHELL; 

DENNIS M. MOLESEVICH; HOULIHAN SMITH; SHELTON SMITH; 

SUNTRUST BANKS, INC.; CHERRY BEKAERT AND HOLLAND LLP; ELLIOT 

& WARREN; CHESTER J. BANULL,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:09-cv-00465-MOC-DCK; 3:09-cv-00546-MOC-DCK; 

3:07-bk-31532)

Submitted: July 27, 2015 Decided: September 18, 2015

Appeal: 14-1988 Doc: 49 Filed: 09/18/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert C. Bowers, MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC, Charlotte, North 

Carolina; Adam M. Burton, Karl C. Huth, IV, PROSPECT 

ADMINISTRATION, LLC, New York, New York, for Appellant. Richard 

P. Darke, DUANE MORRIS LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1988 Doc: 49 Filed: 09/18/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Prospect Capital Corporation appeals from the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and granting Houlihan Smith & Company, Inc.’s motion to 

dismiss the claims against it and denying Prospect Capital’s 

request for leave to amend the complaint. We have reviewed the 

record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, and we find no

abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we 

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Prospect 

Capital Corp. v. Houlihan Smith & Co., No. 3:09-cv-00465-MOC-DCK 

(W.D.N.C. Aug. 20, 2014). 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

Appeal: 14-1988 Doc: 49 Filed: 09/18/2015 Pg: 3 of 3