Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Slevin v. Wachovia Insurance, 05-1062 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-1062 Visitors: 27
Filed: Aug. 02, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1062 JAMES SLEVIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WACHOVIA INSURANCE SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-1565-1-WDQ) Submitted: June 22, 2005 Decided: August 2, 2005 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew G. Hjorts
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1062 JAMES SLEVIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WACHOVIA INSURANCE SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-1565-1-WDQ) Submitted: June 22, 2005 Decided: August 2, 2005 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew G. Hjortsberg, BOWIE & JENSEN, L.L.C., Towson, Maryland, for Appellant. Darrell R. VanDeusen, Clifford B. Geiger, KOLLMAN & SAUCIER, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Slevin appeals the district court’s order dismissing his breach of contract action, in which he sought a declaratory judgment from the district court regarding the parties’ rights under the employment agreement he entered into with Wachovia Insurance Services, Inc. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, and the supplemental joint appendix and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Slevin v. Wachovia Ins. Servs., Inc., No. CA-04-1565-1-WDQ (D. Md. Dec. 21, 2004). We grant Slevin’s motion to file an attachment to his reply brief and 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