Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Thompson Industrial v. MG Bryan Equipment, 99-2374 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-2374 Visitors: 18
Filed: Sep. 08, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2374 THOMPSON INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus M.G. BRYAN EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-1214-3-17) Submitted: May 16, 2000 Decided: September 8, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2374 THOMPSON INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus M.G. BRYAN EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-1214-3-17) Submitted: May 16, 2000 Decided: September 8, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. G. Trenholm Walker, Sean K. Trundy, PRATT-THOMAS, PEARCE, EPTING & WALKER, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. C. Allen Gibson, Jr., Margaret O. Dullanty, BUIST, MOORE, SMYTHE & MCGEE, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Thompson Industrial Services, Inc., appeals the district court’s order granting M.G. Bryan Equipment Co.’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Thompson Indus. Servs. v. M.G. Bryan Equip. Co., No. CA-99-1214-3- 17 (D.S.C. Sept. 13, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer