Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Frison v. Ryan Homes, 04-2480 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-2480 Visitors: 42
Filed: Apr. 19, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2480 LISA A. FRISON; ELLIS S. FRISON, JR., Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus RYAN HOMES; NVR, INCORPORATED; KBM FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-350-AW) Submitted: April 14, 2005 Decided: April 19, 2005 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpubli
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2480 LISA A. FRISON; ELLIS S. FRISON, JR., Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus RYAN HOMES; NVR, INCORPORATED; KBM FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-350-AW) Submitted: April 14, 2005 Decided: April 19, 2005 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. E. Scott Frison, Jr., Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Jeffrey Marc Mervis, MERVIS & ASSOCIATES, Rockville, Maryland; Bonnie Hochman Rothell, KROOTH & ALTMAN, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lisa A. Frison and Ellis S. Frison, Jr., appeal the district court’s orders denying their request for a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief, granting summary judgment to defendants and awarding sanctions against them pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, and denying their motion for recusal. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Frison v. Ryan Homes, No. CA-04-350-AW (D. Md. filed Feb. 23, 2004 & entered Feb. 24, 2004; filed Oct. 29, 2004 & entered Nov. 1, 2004; Nov. 10, 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 -
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