Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-01091/USCOURTS-ca4-10-01091-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
100 John Does

Mark E. Davis
Appellee
Tammy L. Davis
Appellee
Huntington National Bank, N.A.
Appellant
Vera McCormick

Rebuild America, Incorporated
Appellee
Reo America, Incorporated
Appellee
Mike Rutherford

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1091

MARK E. DAVIS; TAMMY L. DAVIS,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

REO AMERICA, INCORPORATED, a Florida corporation, and any 

and all persons; REBUILD AMERICA, INCORPORATED, a Florida 

Corporation,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

MIKE RUTHERFORD, Sheriff of Kanawha County; VERA MCCORMICK, 

Clerk of the County Commission of Kanawha County; 100 JOHN 

DOES, having or claiming any interest in real estate 

identified as 51 Woodbridge Drive, Charleston, West 

Virginia,

Defendants,

v.

HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, N.A.,

Movant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, 

Chief District Judge. (2:09-cv-00096)

Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 7, 2010

Appeal: 10-1091 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/07/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Philip Brown Hereford, HEREFORD & HEREFORD, Charleston, West 

Virginia, for Appellant. Mark E. Davis, Tammy L. Davis,

Appellees Pro Se; James William Lane, Jr., Charleston, West 

Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-1091 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/07/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Huntington National Bank appeals from the district 

court’s order denying its request for attorneys fees following 

the improper removal of the underlying proceeding. Because 

Huntington was not a party to the proceedings in district court, 

the court acted within its discretion in denying Huntington’s 

motion for attorney fees. See People for the Ethical Treatment 

of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359, 370 (4th Cir. 2001) 

(providing standard of review). We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Davis v. Rutherford, No. 

2:09-cv-00096 (S.D. W. Va. filed Oct. 6, 2009 & entered Oct. 8, 

2009). 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

Appeal: 10-1091 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/07/2010 Pg: 3 of 3