Adol T. Owen-Williams, Jr. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Incorporated

103 F.3d 119, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 36454, 1996 WL 688219
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedDecember 2, 1996
Docket96-1442
StatusUnpublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 103 F.3d 119 (Adol T. Owen-Williams, Jr. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Incorporated) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Adol T. Owen-Williams, Jr. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Incorporated, 103 F.3d 119, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 36454, 1996 WL 688219 (4th Cir. 1996).

Opinion

103 F.3d 119

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Adol T. OWEN-WILLIAMS, Jr., Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER AND SMITH, INCORPORATED,
Defendant--Appellee.

No. 96-1442.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued Nov. 21, 1996.
Decided Dec. 2, 1996.

Adol T. Owen-Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Pontone, Margaret A. Jacobsen, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying his motion to modify an arbitration award and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Owen-Williams v. Merrill Lynch, No. CA-94-1287-PJM (D. Md. Dec. 8, 1995; Mar. 19, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion to supplement the record to add documents not before the district court 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
103 F.3d 119, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 36454, 1996 WL 688219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adol-t-owen-williams-jr-v-merrill-lynch-pierce-fenner-and-smith-ca4-1996.