Case Name: Larry A. ODOM, Sr., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, Judy Odom, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTHEAST SUPPLY HEADER, LLC, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee; Larry A. Odom, Sr., Judy Odom, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Southeast Supply Header, LLC, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-22
Citations: 418 F. App'x 871
Docket Number: Nos. 10-12306, 10-12610
Parties: Larry A. ODOM, Sr., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, Judy Odom, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTHEAST SUPPLY HEADER, LLC, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee. Larry A. Odom, Sr., Judy Odom, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Southeast Supply Header, LLC, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and SEITZ, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 418
Pages: 871–872

Head Matter:
Larry A. ODOM, Sr., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, Judy Odom, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTHEAST SUPPLY HEADER, LLC, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee. Larry A. Odom, Sr., Judy Odom, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Southeast Supply Header, LLC, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 10-12306, 10-12610.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
March 22, 2011.
John W. Parker, Law Offices of John W. Parker, Daphne, AL, for Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, Plaintiff-Appellant.
Scott Gardner Brown, Benjamin Young Ford, Duane A. Graham, Armbrecht Jackson, LLP, Mobile, AL, for Defendants Counter-Claimant-Appellee.
Before CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and SEITZ, District Judge.
Honorable Patricia A. Seitz, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Larry and Judy Odom appeal from the district court's judgment for Southeast Supply Header, LLC, but only insofar as it reformed the grant of easement between the parties. Southeast Supply cross-appeals from the district court's judgment in favor of the Odoms on its counterclaim for abuse of process.
Having read the briefs, studied the relevant parts of the record, and heard oral argument, we affirm the district court's judgment reforming the grant of easement, and its judgment on the abuse of process counterclaim on the basis of its well-reasoned orders of December 9, 2009 and April 29, 2010. To the thorough discussions in those two orders, we have nothing to add.
AFFIRMED.