ReliaStar Life Insurance Company v. John Laschkewitsch

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2020
RELIASTAR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN B. LASCHKEWITSCH,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-2182
RELIASTAR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN B. LASCHKEWITSCH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:13-cv-00210-BO)
Submitted: February 27, 2015 Decided: March 11, 2015
Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John B. Laschkewitsch, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher J. Blake,
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Raleigh, North
Carolina; Hutson Brit Smelley, EDISON MCDOWELL & HETHERINGTON,
LLP, Houston, Texas, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
John B. Laschkewitsch appeals the district court’s orders
granting summary judgment to ReliaStar Life Insurance Company
(“ReliaStar”) in his civil action, denying his motion to amend,
and granting costs and attorney’s fees to ReliaStar. On appeal,
Laschkewitsch asserts multiple errors by the district court
related to the admission of evidence, fraud, contestability,
unfair trade and settlement practices, and breach of contract.
We affirm.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de
novo, applying the same legal standards as the district court
and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. Walker v. Mod-U-Kraf Homes, LLC, 775 F.3d 202,
208 (4th Cir. 2014). The district court must enter summary
judgment “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient
to establish the existence of an element essential to that
party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of
proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322
(1986).
“Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a
rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there
is no genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (internal quotation
marks omitted). “The nonmoving party cannot create a genuine
3
issue of material fact through mere speculation or the building
of one inference upon another,” Othentec Ltd. v. Phelan, 526
F.3d 135, 140 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks
omitted), and “cannot defeat summary judgment with merely a
scintilla of evidence,” Am. Arms Int’l v. Herbert, 563 F.3d 78,
82 (4th Cir. 2009). Rather, it “must produce some evidence
(more than a scintilla) upon which a jury could properly proceed
to find a verdict for the party producing it, upon whom the onus
of proof is imposed.” Othentec Ltd., 526 F.3d at 140 (internal
quotation marks omitted).
We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, and we
conclude that the district court did not err. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See
ReliaStar Life Ins. Co. v. Laschkewitsch, No. 5:13-cv-00210-BO
(E.D.N.C. May 28, 2014 & Sept. 25, 2014). We deny
Laschkewitsch’s motion to submit new evidence and 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
4