Santanna v. Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Fourth Circuit

Santanna v. Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

370 F. App'x 406

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided March 19, 2010·No. No. 09-2154·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rodriguez Samuel Da Matha De Santan-na appeals from the district court order dismissing his claims against the law firm of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP (“Bradley Arant”). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Da Matha De Santanna v. Bradley Arant Cummings LLP, No. 8:09-cv-02438-RWT (D.Md. Sept. 30, 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rodriguez Samuel Da Matha De Santan-na appeals from the district court order dismissing his claims against the law firm of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP (“Bradley Arant”). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Da Matha De Santanna v. Bradley Arant Cummings LLP, No. 8:09-cv-02438-RWT (D.Md. Sept. 30, 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.

Santanna v. Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, 370 F. App'x 406 (4th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

370 F. App'x 406 (Santanna v. Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.