The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
20-2376•Clara Lewis Brockington v. Kimbrell’s Furniture of Florence
20-2376Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMar 23, 2022
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-2376
CLARA LEWIS BROCKINGTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KIMBRELL’S FURNITURE OF FLORENCE; MIKE ELLIS, Store Manager;
KIMBRELL’S CORPORATE OFFICE; TERRY PETERS, Vice President; CAROL
FAIRCLOTH, Regional Manager; CINDY MORRISON, Credit Manager;
FORTEGRA INSURANCE CO. LIFE OF SOUTH; VIVIAN GOHERTRY, Claims
Dept.; FAST FURNITURE REPAIRS; RON EASLEY, Store Manager; RICK S.
KAHLBAUGH, CEO Fortegra Life,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
LACY DE TEMPLE, Kimbrell’s Claim Dept.; JOSIE WHEELER, Store Manager
of Sam’s Furniture; S.C. DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE; DIANE COOPER,
Insurance Manager of S.C. Department of Insurance; NANDI J. CHOLER,
Insurance Analyst, S.C. Dept. of Insurance,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:20-cv-03270-RBH)
Submitted: March 14, 2022 Decided: March 23, 2022
Before WYNN and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clara Lewis Brockington, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Clara Lewis Brockington appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her complaint without prejudice.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Brockington v. Kimbrell’s Furniture of Florence, No.
4:20-cv-03270-RBH (D.S.C. Nov. 19, 2020). 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.