Filed: Jun. 16, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1394 RONALD E. JARMUTH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES SCHWAB AND COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-80-1) Submitted: June 2, 2004 Decided: June 16, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald E. Jarmuth, A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1394 RONALD E. JARMUTH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES SCHWAB AND COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-80-1) Submitted: June 2, 2004 Decided: June 16, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald E. Jarmuth, Ap..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1394 RONALD E. JARMUTH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES SCHWAB AND COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-80-1) Submitted: June 2, 2004 Decided: June 16, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald E. Jarmuth, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Ryan Goodwin, GOODWIN & GOODWIN, L.L.P., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ronald E. Jarmuth appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment for Charles Schwab on his action filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Jarmuth v. Charles Schwab & Co., No. CA-03-80-1 (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 3, 2004). 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 -
