Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ely v. Fortier Loss Control, 02-1966 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-1966 Visitors: 18
Filed: Mar. 12, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1966 CARL G. ELY; GILDA ELY, Administrators of the Estate of Carl G. Ely, Jr., deceased, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus FORTIER LOSS CONTROL CONSULTANTS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-25-2) Submitted: January 29, 2003 Decided: March 12, 2003 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1966 CARL G. ELY; GILDA ELY, Administrators of the Estate of Carl G. Ely, Jr., deceased, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus FORTIER LOSS CONTROL CONSULTANTS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-25-2) Submitted: January 29, 2003 Decided: March 12, 2003 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl E. McAfee, MCAFEE LAW FIRM, P.C., Norton, Virginia, for Appellants. Donald W. Huffman, HUFFMAN & NIXON, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Carl G. Ely and Gilda Ely appeal the district court’s order granting Fortier Loss Control Consultants’ motion to dismiss their wrongful death action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We note that the facts relied on by the district court in reaching its conclusion were contained in the complaint. Based on those facts, it is clear that Plaintiffs’ decedent was contributorily negligent, and his negligence was the proximate cause of his fatal accident. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Ely v. Fortier Loss Control Consultants, Inc., No. CA-02-25-2 (W.D. Va. Aug. 2, 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
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