Filed: Jun. 08, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1446 T. JAMES ANDERSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY; ROBERT VAN SCHAIK; UNION BAPTIST CHURCH, INCORPORATED; ELIZABETH WATSON, Adjuster, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-00- 3442-AMD) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 8, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1446 T. JAMES ANDERSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY; ROBERT VAN SCHAIK; UNION BAPTIST CHURCH, INCORPORATED; ELIZABETH WATSON, Adjuster, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-00- 3442-AMD) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 8, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Af..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1446 T. JAMES ANDERSON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY; ROBERT VAN SCHAIK; UNION BAPTIST CHURCH, INCORPORATED; ELIZABETH WATSON, Adjuster, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-00- 3442-AMD) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 8, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. T. James Anderson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Charles Elliott Wilson, Jr., MCCARTHY, WILSON & ETHRIDGE, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: T. James Anderson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil rights action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Anderson v. Erie Insurance Co., No. CA-00- 3442-AMD (D. Md. Feb. 28, 2001). 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 2
