Filed: Sep. 04, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1324 PHILLIP EDWARD BELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus E. DAVIS INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Car-Freshner Corporation, Defendant - Appellee, CAR-FRESHNER CORPORATION, Defendant & Third Party Plaintiff - Appellee, versus COUSIN CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Third Party Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-00-1
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1324 PHILLIP EDWARD BELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus E. DAVIS INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Car-Freshner Corporation, Defendant - Appellee, CAR-FRESHNER CORPORATION, Defendant & Third Party Plaintiff - Appellee, versus COUSIN CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Third Party Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-00-13..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1324
PHILLIP EDWARD BELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
E. DAVIS INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, d/b/a
Car-Freshner Corporation,
Defendant - Appellee,
CAR-FRESHNER CORPORATION,
Defendant & Third Party Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
COUSIN CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
Third Party Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (CA-00-131-1-T)
Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 4, 2002
Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Phillip Edward Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Holdsclaw Boyles,
KILPATRICK STOCKTON, L.L.P., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Phillip Edward Bell appeals the district court’s order
granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denying
various pending motions as moot in this copyright infringement
action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s
memorandum and opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bell v. E.
Davis Int’l Inc., No. CA-00-131-1-T (W.D.N.C. filed Feb. 14, 2002
& entered Feb. 15, 2002; Mar. 9, 2002). 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