Topic
Every decision we've filed under Civil.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Jesse D. Pellow's civil action against the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found no reversible error in the lower court's ruling, leaving the plaintiff without a federal forum to pursue his claims.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court's grant of partial summary judgment against Clearcom, Inc. for breach of contract and unjust enrichment regarding the Paniolo Cable Company infrastructure. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the Trustee's claim that the Master Services Agreement and Emergency Service Order remained active when Clearcom failed to pay.
The Sixth Circuit denies petitions for review, affirming that Arch Resources remains liable for black lung benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act. The court relies on binding precedent to reject arguments that liability transferred when Arch sold its subsidiary in 2005.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Lawrence Ingram's civil action because his objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation were untimely and lacked specific factual or legal grounds. This procedural failure waived his right to appellate review of the district court's underlying order.
The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to deny asylum and Convention Against Torture relief. The court held that small business ownership is not an immutable characteristic and that generalized country conditions do not prove government acquiescence required for CAT protection.
The Sixth Circuit denies petitions for review, affirming that Arch Resources remains liable for Black Lung benefits under the self-insurance provisions of the Black Lung Benefits Act. The court holds that because the petitioners concede their arguments are identical to those previously rejected in Apogee Coal Co. v. Director, OWCP, the prior published decision binds this panel.
The Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal because the pro se appellant failed to file specific objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation after receiving proper notice. This procedural failure forfeited the appellant's right to appellate review of the district court's underlying order.
The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review seeking asylum and related relief for Russian nationals, upholding the Board of Immigration Appeals' finding that the evidence did not compel a conclusion of persecution. The court held that the Immigration Judge properly applied the cumulative-effect standard and that the record failed to show an objectively well-founded fear of future persecution.
The Sixth Circuit denied petitions for review, affirming that Arch Resources remains liable for black lung benefits accrued while it self-insured its subsidiary Apogee. The court held that the parties' arguments were identical to those rejected in a prior published decision, which binds the panel and precludes relief.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a pro se civil rights complaint because the appellant failed to challenge the specific legal basis for the lower court's order in his informal brief. Under Fourth Circuit Rule 34(b), this omission forfeited appellate review, leaving the district court's dismissal and denial of postjudgment motions intact.