Filed: Apr. 20, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2305 JOSEPH T. WATKINS; JOHNNIE S. WATKINS, (Mrs.), Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus ROBERT L. EHRLICH, JR.; VINYL TECHNOLOGIES, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-2813-AW) Submitted: February 23, 2005 Decided: April 20, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirme
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2305 JOSEPH T. WATKINS; JOHNNIE S. WATKINS, (Mrs.), Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus ROBERT L. EHRLICH, JR.; VINYL TECHNOLOGIES, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-2813-AW) Submitted: February 23, 2005 Decided: April 20, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2305 JOSEPH T. WATKINS; JOHNNIE S. WATKINS, (Mrs.), Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus ROBERT L. EHRLICH, JR.; VINYL TECHNOLOGIES, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-2813-AW) Submitted: February 23, 2005 Decided: April 20, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph T. Watkins, Johnnie S. Watkins, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Joseph T. and Johnnie S. Watkins appeal the district court’s order dismissing their complaint for want of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Watkins v. Ehrlich, No. CA-04-2813-AW (D. Md. Sept. 16, 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 -
