Filed: Feb. 28, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1037 JOHN B. KIMBLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, and KAY J. KIMBLE, Plaintiff, versus MIDFIRST BANK; AARON R. CARUSO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 02-3869-PJM) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 28, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1037 JOHN B. KIMBLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, and KAY J. KIMBLE, Plaintiff, versus MIDFIRST BANK; AARON R. CARUSO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 02-3869-PJM) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 28, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1037 JOHN B. KIMBLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, and KAY J. KIMBLE, Plaintiff, versus MIDFIRST BANK; AARON R. CARUSO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 02-3869-PJM) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 28, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John B. Kimble, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John B. Kimble appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his petition for injunctive relief for lack of diversity jurisdiction and denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Kimble v. Midfirst Bank, No. CA-02-3869-PJM (D. Md. Nov. 27, 2002; filed Dec. 20, 2002, & entered Dec. 23, 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
