King v. Law Firm of Goldman & Vetter

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 6, 2004
• Docket: 03-1138
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1138

JAMES KING; LINDA KING; WENDY KING,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

and

STANLEY JAMES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

versus

LAW FIRM OF GOLDMAN & VETTER; BIG CREEK ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, an Illinois Corporation and James Elson; MIDAMERICA NATIONAL BANK, and Mr. David Hayes; IRVING EVANS; GARNET EVANS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-02- 2164-AMD)

Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: October 6, 2004

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Ray Ford, Camp Springs, Maryland, for Appellants. Gerard R. Vetter, GOLDMAN & VETTER, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Law Firm of Goldman & Vetter; Irving Evans, Garnet Evans, Appellees Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

James King, Linda King, and Wendy King appeal the

district court’s order dismissing sua sponte their civil complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2000). We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See King v. Law Firm of Goldman

& Vetter, No. CA-02-2164-AMD (D. Md. Jan. 13, 2003). 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

- 3 -