Filed: Oct. 10, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1430 MABLE SMITH; SHEATRINA SMITH, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY; DOLGENCORP, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees, and CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Party in Interest, THE ESTATE OF THOMAS J. HARLAN, JR., Party in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-02-623-2) Submitted: Sept
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1430 MABLE SMITH; SHEATRINA SMITH, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY; DOLGENCORP, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees, and CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Party in Interest, THE ESTATE OF THOMAS J. HARLAN, JR., Party in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-02-623-2) Submitted: Septe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1430 MABLE SMITH; SHEATRINA SMITH, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY; DOLGENCORP, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees, and CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Party in Interest, THE ESTATE OF THOMAS J. HARLAN, JR., Party in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-02-623-2) Submitted: September 29, 2003 Decided: October 10, 2003 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John M. Flora, EPSTEIN, SANDLER & FLORA, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellants. Scott C. Ford, Patricia A. Collins, MCCANDLISH HOLTON, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mable Smith and Sheatrina Smith appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment for Defendants in their product liability action. We have reviewed the briefs, the joint appendix, and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. The Sherwin-Williams Co., No. CA-02-623-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2003). 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