UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1050
United States of America, for the use and
benefit of J. BOBBY CURRIN & SONS, a North
Carolina General Partnership,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
J & W BUILDERS, INCORPORATED,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CA-95-533-2)
Submitted: June 9, 1998 Decided: August 31, 1998
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George K. Freeman, Jr., ROUNTREE & SEAGLE, L.L.P., Wilmington,
North Carolina; Benjamin N. Thompson, THOMPSON & GODWIN, L.L.P.,
Dunn, North Carolina, for Appellant. C. Hamilton Jarrett, ELLZEY
& BROOKS, L.L.C., Raleigh, North Carolina; James Lynn Werner,
Cheryl L. Behymer, ELLZEY & BROOKS, L.L.C., Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
J. Bobby Currin & Sons (“Currin”) appeals the district court’s
order granting summary judgment in favor of Hartford Accident and
Indemnity Company (“Hartford”), in this action filed under the
Miller Act, 40 U.S.C.A. §§ 270a to 270d (West 1986 & Supp. 1998).
Currin sought payment in excess of $310,000 under the payment bond
issued by Hartford, as surety, for the work Currin did as a subcon-
tractor on a government project. Hartford asserted in its motion
for summary judgment that Currin’s claim was barred by the one-year
statute of limitations. See 40 U.S.C.A. § 270b. Currin responded
that the doctrine of equitable estoppel precluded Hartford from
raising the limitations defense. The district court granted summary
judgment in Hartford’s favor and dismissed Currin’s action as un-
timely filed, relying on United States ex rel. Humble Oil & Re-
fining Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 402 F.2d 893,
898 (4th Cir. 1968).
We have carefully examined the record, the briefs, and the
opinion of the district court. We agree with the district court
that Currin failed to satisfy the requirements of equitable
estoppel and, therefore, affirm the grant of summary judgment on
the reasoning of the district court. See United States ex rel. J.
Bobby Currin & Sons v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., No. CA-95-
533-2 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 13, 1996). We dispense with oral argument
3
based on our prior order granting the unopposed motion to submit
the case on briefs.
AFFIRMED
4