Harper v. United Services Automobile Ass'n

Fourth Circuit

Harper v. United Services Automobile Ass'n

448 F. App'x 404

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 4, 2011

DocketNo. 11-1193

StatusPublished

This text of 448 F. App'x 404 (Harper v. United Services Automobile Ass'n) 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

Harper v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 448 F. App'x 404 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Vera C. Harper and David A. Harper appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying their motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice their second amended complaint for failure to serve the defendants under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), and the district court’s subsequent order denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Harper v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’ n, No. 1:08-cv-00478-LO-TRJ (E.D. Va. Nov. 2, 2010; Jan. 20, 2011; Feb. 4, 2011). 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Vera C. Harper and David A. Harper appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying their motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice their second amended complaint for failure to serve the defendants under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), and the district court’s subsequent order denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Harper v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’ n, No. 1:08-cv-00478-LO-TRJ (E.D. Va. Nov. 2, 2010; Jan. 20, 2011; Feb. 4, 2011). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

448 F. App'x 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harper-v-united-services-automobile-assn-ca4-2011.