Hagenbuch v. Compaq Computer Corp

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 16, 2001
• Docket: 01-1405
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1405

RICKY HAGENBUCH; CATHY HAGENBUCH; RICKY HAGENBUCH BUILDING CONTRACTOR, INCORPORATED; HEALTHFUL LIVING,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

COMPAQ COMPUTER CORPORATION; SBC COMMUNICA- TIONS, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Southwestern Bell Telephone Company; PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY; SOUTHWESTERN BELL INTERNET SERVICES, INCORPORATED, d/b/a SBC Internet Services, Incorporated; PACIFIC BELL INTERNET SERVICES; SBC ADVANCED SOLUTIONS, INCORPORATED, a/k/a ASI,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

AMERITECH, INCORPORATED; DSL TECHNOLOGIES, INCORPORATED; ASI COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES, INCORPORATED,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-00-2073-A)

Submitted: September 28, 2001 Decided: October 16, 2001 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen R. Palmer, STEPHEN R. PALMER, ESQ., P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellants. Kent A. Gardiner, Christopher J. Huber, James C. Cooper, CROWELL & MORING, L.L.P., Washington, D.C.; Emily M. Yinger, James S. Rixse, HOGAN & HARTSON, L.L.P., McLean, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal from the district court’s order dismissing

their civil complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Our review of the record included on appeal and

the parties’ briefs discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hagenbuch v. Compaq

Computer Corp., No. CA-00-2073-A (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 7, 2001;

entered Feb. 8, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-

rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED