Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01405/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01405-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED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.

Appeal: 16-1405 Doc: 48 Filed: 02/16/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1405 Doc: 48 Filed: 02/16/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 16-1405 Doc: 48 Filed: 02/16/2017 Pg: 3 of 3