Independence Federal Savings Bank v. Briley

393 F. App'x 66
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided August 26, 2010·No. No. 09-2314·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jay and Constance Briley appeal the district court’s order granting Independence Federal Savings Bank’s summary judgment motion on its breach of contract claim. The Brileys have also filed several motions in this court, including motions for appointment of counsel, for dismissal of judgment, and for the Bank to provide documentation of tax relief it allegedly received. We have reviewed the record and [67]*67find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the pending motions and affirm the district court’s order and judgment. Independence Fed. Sav. Bank v. Briley, No. 1:08-cv-01189-LO-JFA, 2009 WL 3498110 (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 27, 2009 & entered Oct. 29, 2009). 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

Independence Federal Savings Bank v. Briley, 393 F. App'x 66 (4th Cir. 2010).

393 F. App'x 66 (Independence Federal Savings Bank v. Briley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wilchfort v. Knight
307 F. Supp. 3d 64 (E.D. New York, 2018)