Haburn v. Kilby

Fourth Circuit

Haburn v. Kilby

312 F. App'x 580

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 25, 2009·No. No. 08-1785·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James D. Haburn and Stefanie A. Roden appeal the district court’s order dismissing their civil action against John F. Kilby and the Bank of Fincastle. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Haburn v. Kilby, No. 7:04-cv-00336-jct (W.D.Va. June 11, 2008). Additionally, we deny Appellants’ motion for production of transcripts as moot. We 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James D. Haburn and Stefanie A. Roden appeal the district court’s order dismissing their civil action against John F. Kilby and the Bank of Fincastle. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Haburn v. Kilby, No. 7:04-cv-00336-jct (W.D.Va. June 11, 2008). Additionally, we deny Appellants’ motion for production of transcripts as moot. We 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.

Haburn v. Kilby, 312 F. App'x 580 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

312 F. App'x 580 (Haburn v. Kilby) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.