Case Name: George E. PICKETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK FA; William Walt Pettit; W.J. Kellam, Jr.; Kellam & Pettit, PA, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-16
Citations: 158 F. App'x 441
Docket Number: No. 05-1261
Parties: George E. PICKETT, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK FA; William Walt Pettit; W.J. Kellam, Jr.; Kellam & Pettit, PA, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 441–442

Head Matter:
George E. PICKETT, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK FA; William Walt Pettit; W.J. Kellam, Jr.; Kellam & Pettit, PA, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-1261.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 23, 2005.
Decided: Dec. 16, 2005.
George E. Pickett, Appellant Pro Se. John Weldon O’Tuel, III, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Raleigh, North Carolina; Vaiden Pearson Kendrick, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
George E. Pickett appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants on his civil action arising out of a lengthy dispute with his mortgage lender. Our review of the record, including the district court's thorough opinion, discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Pickett v. Washington Mutual Bank, No. CA-03-45-7 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 2, 2005). We deny Pickett's motion for injunction and 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