Larosa v. Larosa

Fourth Circuit

Larosa v. Larosa

108 F. App'x 113

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 3, 2004

Docket04-1223

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 108 F. App'x 113 (Larosa v. Larosa) 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

Larosa v. Larosa, 108 F. App'x 113 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

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).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 F. App'x 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larosa-v-larosa-ca4-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack