Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

American Monument v. Strong, 03-1363 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-1363 Visitors: 47
Filed: Jun. 16, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1363 AMERICAN MONUMENT FOUNDATION, L.L.C., Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BRETT LIVINGSTONE STRONG, Defendant - Appellant, and COMMERCIAL MOVING & RIGGING, INCORPORATED; WILLIAMS EQUIPMENT CORPORATION; WILLIAMS INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-02-897-A) Submitted: December 17, 2003 Dec
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1363 AMERICAN MONUMENT FOUNDATION, L.L.C., Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BRETT LIVINGSTONE STRONG, Defendant - Appellant, and COMMERCIAL MOVING & RIGGING, INCORPORATED; WILLIAMS EQUIPMENT CORPORATION; WILLIAMS INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-02-897-A) Submitted: December 17, 2003 Decided: June 16, 2004 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rachel L. Semanchik, Thomas O. Mason, WILLIAMS MULLEN, McLean, Virginia, for Appellant. N. Thomas Connally, HOGAN & HARTSON L.L.P., McLean, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Brett Livingstone Strong appeals from the district court’s order granting Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the magistrate judge’s order granting Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Am. Monument Found., LLC v. Strong, No. CA-02-897-A (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 12, 2003; entered Feb. 19, 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 - 3 -
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