Squirek v. Law Offices of Sessoms & Rogers, P.A.

Fourth Circuit

Squirek v. Law Offices of Sessoms & Rogers, P.A.

71 F. App'x 268

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided August 20, 2003·No. No. 03-1746·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Thomas J. Squirek appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint against the Law Offices of Sessoms & Rogers, P.A., and Stuart M. Sessoms, Jr. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Squirek v. Law Offices of Sessoms & Rogers, P.A., 2003 WL 21026580, No. CA-02—40—1 (M.D.N.C. May 5, 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.

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

PER CURIAM.

Thomas J. Squirek appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint against the Law Offices of Sessoms & Rogers, P.A., and Stuart M. Sessoms, Jr. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Squirek v. Law Offices of Sessoms & Rogers, P.A., 2003 WL 21026580, No. CA-02—40—1 (M.D.N.C. May 5, 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.

Squirek v. Law Offices of Sessoms & Rogers, P.A., 71 F. App'x 268 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

71 F. App'x 268 (Squirek v. Law Offices of Sessoms & Rogers, P.A.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.