Wallace v. Trost

Fourth Circuit

Wallace v. Trost

530 F. App'x 254

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 25, 2013·No. No. 13-1454·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Scott Wallace appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2006) and granting defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wallace v. Trost, No. 8:13-cv-00101-DKC, 2013 WL 1316453 (D.Md. Mar. 26, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Andrew Scott Wallace appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2006) and granting defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wallace v. Trost, No. 8:13-cv-00101-DKC, 2013 WL 1316453 (D.Md. Mar. 26, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Wallace v. Trost, 530 F. App'x 254 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

530 F. App'x 254 (Wallace v. Trost) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related