Larosa v. Larosa

108 F. App'x 113

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Joan LaRosa and Virgil B. LaRosa appeal from the magistrate judge’s order * determining that an “Order of Court” entered in the District Court for the District of Maryland was a final judgment in that action. The magistrate judge therefore concluded that the Maryland judgment was properly registered in the Northern District of West Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1963 (2000), and accordingly denied Joan and Virgil’s motion to quash the registration of judgment. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. See LaRosa v. LaRosa, No. CA-02-9-1 (N.D.W.Va. Jan. 23, 2004). 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

* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).